[xwowsersx]

This take feels like classic Cal Newport pattern-matching: something looks vaguely "consumerish," so it must signal decline. It's a huge overreach.

Whether OpenAI becomes a truly massive, world-defining company is an open question, but it's not going to be decided by Sora. Treating a research-facing video generator as if it's OpenAI's attempt at the next TikTok is just missing the forest for the trees. Sora isn't a product bet, it's a technology demo or a testbed for video and image modeling. They threw a basic interface on top so people could actually use it. If they shut that interface down tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing about the underlying progress in generative modeling.

You can argue that OpenAI lacks focus, or that they waste energy on these experiments. That's a reasonable discussion. But calling it "the beginning of the end" because of one side project is just unserious. Tech companies at the frontier run hundreds of little prototypes like this... most get abandoned, and that's fine.

The real question about OpenAI's future has nothing to do with Sora. It's whether large language and multimodal models eventually become a zero-margin commodity. If that happens, OpenAI's valuation problem isn't about branding or app strategy, it's about economics. Can they build a moat beyond "we have the biggest model"? Because that won't hold once opensource and fine-tuned domain models catch up.

So sure, Sora might be a distraction. But pretending that a minor interface launch is some great unraveling of OpenAI's trajectory is just lazy narrative-hunting.

[jononor]

Their first bet was than they were going to be the frontier model provider by a good margin, and that others would not be able to compete on the "intelligence". And that they could get distribution via big customers looking to buy model access. The dominant-model-provider strategy has already failed, many actors have models that rival them - both established (Google) and newcomers (Anthropic). Open models are not to shabby either, enough to undermine the narrative "we are uniquely able to do powerful models". As you say, there is a commodification process started, and it might be a race to the bottom in terms of margin. So, OpenAI has moved into a new/adapted strategy, where they want to own the customers to a much larger degree, and rely less on partners/customers for distribution. This is likely because their prospective partners have a bunch of viable models to select between (many end products for power users lets people select freely), and high competitive pressure on costs (as it defines the margin and competitiveness) of the end products. Codex, Sora, their new web browser announcement, adjustments in ChatGPT is all to ensure a lot of direct end users - more brand recognition, more influence, more monetization possibilities. So I think it is a considerable pivot from their initial plan/hopes. But it is not an unraveling - it is a rather smart response to the fierce competition in the market.

[bossyTeacher]

I agree. My bet is that OpenAI will not fullfill its mission of developing AGI by 2035. And I would be surprised if they ever did. As much as they might want to, there is only so many dreams you can whisper into rich people's ears before they tell you to go away. And without rich people's money, OpenAI will fall like a house of cards. The wealthy won't have infinite patience

[BurpIntruder]

It seems they are going to try to maximize their installed base, build the infrastructure, and try to own everything in between, whether it’s LLM or some other architecture that arises. Owning data centers and an installed base sounds great in theory, but it assumes you can outbuild hyperscalers on infrastructure and that your users will stick around. Data centers are a low margin grind and the installed base in AI isn’t locked in like iPhones. Apple and Google still control the endpoints, and I think they’ll ultimately decide who wins by what they integrate at the OS level.

[impossiblefork]

There are also interesting things one could do with models like Sora, depending how it actually performs in practice: prompting to segment, for example; and the thing could very possibly, if it's fast enough etc. become a foundation for robotics.

[softwaredoug]

I don't think that's fair.

ChatGPT clearly is "for consumers". Whereas Sora is a kind of enshitification to monetize engagement. It's right to question the latter.