Pika Labs new generative AI video tool unveiled — and it looks like a big deal::The new Pika 1.0 tool comes after a $55 million funding round for the generative AI company and is a big step up in AI video production.

  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    10 months ago

    I quite like AI art.

    It’s capable of generating things that we’ve not seen before because as hard as we try what we create always has a human filter on it.

    If people don’t like it it won’t catch on anyway.

      • zazo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ah yes, because the favorite part of the process for every artist is the hours spent going back and forth with their client touching up the most minor details instead of creating art they actually want to make…

        Idk, I feel AI art only affects commercial artists who first and foremost care about making money off their art form. The ones that actually make art for the love of the craft (without expectation of getting anything in return) aren’t really affected in any way.

        TL;DR Let UBI free artists from the capitalistic yoke and let the oligarchs use AI to automate the soulless part of art creation that nobody enjoys anyways.

        • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          In what world is it a bad thing for someone to get paid for their skills? That’s a bizarre spin to put on it.

          And yes, UBI should definitely happen, but we shouldn’t start painting the world with crap to do it.

          • zazo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s fine to get paid for your skills, but from experience I can say that developing skills just to get paid is also rather soulless.

            Since, sure, I can bet there’re furry artists that love drawing sexy tigers to bits, but I can guarantee there’s a not-so-small percentage that would much rather draw something else, but the yiffing money is too good to pass up on.

          • Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Being paid for your skills is service, not art. It can be art when your audience’s money isn’t the director.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, service isn’t art. If you’re making “art” for someone else’s money, you’re performing a service. You’re not an artist. Remember when YouTube was mostly just people getting their ideas out and going viral was because something was awesome instead of being designed to spread? Now it’s every kid and their grandma trying to be an influencer so they can have fun with other people’s money for a living.

          When what you’re doing isn’t for the clients’ money, it can be art. There’s no constraint this way.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Exactly, personalised art should only be for those who can afford to pay for it. Expanding that privilege to more people is very bad.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s literally a luxury, and trying to yank the rug out from under the artists who actually made the art the plagiarism machine runs on isn’t going to change that. You don’t need personalized art, and if you REALLY REALLY want personalized art super bad then that just underlines the value that artists give to society.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s literally a luxury to have your own copy of a book, and trying to yank the rug out from under the scribes who actually made the books the plagiarism press runs on isn’t going to change that. You don’t need your own book and if you REALLY REALLY want one super bad then that just underlines the value that scribes give to society.

            • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              Modern society was partly possible due to the printing press. Yep, it sucks that people had their jobs replaced and if it were happening now I’d be fighting for them to be looked after, as they should.

              Generating art is not some amazing world changing technology, it’s trash. We do not need to replace artists, and frankly we just fucking shouldn’t.

              • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                If it’s so trash it won’t replace them right? So there’s no issue.

                Plus these neural networks could be the stepping stones to a truly transformative technology and in 100 years someone will be saying exactly what you said about the printing press.

                Hate for AI is a meme at this point.

                • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Tell that to Disney, for example. It wouldn’t replace artists in a world that cared about artistic quality… we don’t live in that world.

                  For capitalists, easily generated shit is good enough.

                  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    That’s down to the audience. If people won’t accept it then it won’t be done. If people do then why wouldn’t they.

              • zazo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                10 months ago

                Any artist who stops being an artist because someone else can put words into a computer and get a big tiddy goth gf pic out, wasn’t really that interested in making art in the first place.

                • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  My guy, they stop being an artist because someone stole all their work and fired them for it

                  • zazo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    My dude, my grandfather got fired after the collapse of the soviet economy because “artist” wasn’t a productive enough job to be kept around, but he still made art for 20 years after without getting paid because his purpose in life was to create art, not to sell it.

                    And sure the theft argument would be valid, but that’s a strawman, because Adobe have already trained their own image gen model on fully licensed images and real life artists are already paying money to use it, so they must see the value in it.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If I can’t have the plagiarism machine spit out 100 pics of my big tiddy anime gf kissing me that’s just like children not having access to books. Won’t someone think of how every generation before this lived under the oppression of artists who wouldn’t work for free? 😭

              It’s also a crime to reprint anything without the original author or artist’s permission so you might not like where your analogy leads lmao.

    • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I do not like theft laundering machines.

      I like people.

      AI actually has good uses when embedded within technology, a great example being natural language processing, it’s capable of so much good especially for the disabled. But so much effort is being focused on creating junk, using stolen data. People are not being paid for their work which is then being used to replace their jobs.

      • zazo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        Do you think the software engineers who are developing the AI models (which have been trained on freely given away code) are just stupid and are willingly creating a machine that will take away their jobs because they don’t understand the impacts? Or could it be that they do understand the stakes, but continue on despite that because of (as you mention) the unfathomable good the technology can bring? I would hope most people would be willing to sacrifice their wellbeing now for the betterment of everyone else in the future.

        If you’re still understandably worried tho - just start a garden and begin building tightly knit communities now, since you never know when a solar flare will wipe all our technological progress away…

        • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Do you understand that there’s a choice about what purpose to make these for?

          That yeah, you can just ignore all the harm you’ll do? That people do just ignore all the harm they are doing?

          No, I’m not one to call people stupid. I’m calling people and corporations greedy, there’s an insanely long history of that and I’m sick of it ruining this world.

          People do choose to make good AI, ones that will and currently are benefiting people. This is not one of them, I’m not calling all AI bad, I’m calling theft and soulless art generation bad.

          What if a solar flare hits? What if the world was made of pudding?

          • Lmaydev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            You can say that about all software.

            As a programmer my job is to automate tasks and make people obsolete.

            You have to make your peace with it.

            Should we ban excel and calculators and make everyone do calculations by hand? It would create a lot jobs Hehe

            Also the solar flare thing is a very real thing that could happen. Not a random hypothetical like the pudding.

            • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Hello, we have the same job.

              It is not something to be proud of, but it is a part of progress and it is vaguely justifiable if it actually has a worthwhile purpose. We should also be helping the people whose jobs we replace, but we don’t. I joined a union to try and help those people, to secure their jobs and to get them the pay they deserve.

              AI art is not a worthwhile thing to create. Stealing from people is bad. These are my points.

              A solar flare is entirely unrelated to anything I’m talking about, hence the pudding.

              • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                It’s really not up to us to help people. That’s why we have governments. Of course we should if we can.

                If your job can be easily automated then you are wasting your life anyway.

                The technology behind it is incredibly powerful and these tools are funding research.

                • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Is it our responsibility to help people? I think it is if we’re helping to hurt them. While we can technically throw the blame up the corporate chain, I think we need to have personal responsibility for our actions, I understand that you, as I do, likely rely on your job to exist, but we can still push for the least harm possible.

                  If you advocate up said chain on behalf of others, then that is good too.

                  I’m aware of what this technology can do, I actively use some to help with my work. But I make sure it’s as ethical as it can be.

                  And AI art is not really all that useful. Just because you can automate art doesn’t mean it’s a waste. I think that’s a dreadfully bleak view.

                  Helping funding research is great and all, but maybe they should pay all the people they’re stealing from? Or at the very least get consent.

                  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I was talking about automating jobs in general there. AI will never replace art completely. Only really digital artists if it does.

                    It depends how you view it. You could chose to view it as saving someone from a pointless job. If I can write an application to do it then they are literally wasting their lives doing that task.

                    Is keeping someone in a bullshit job helping them?

                    It not up to me to create jobs. I’d start a business if I wanted to do that. The task of keeping people in employment as technology progresses is way above my paygrade and not something I know anything about.