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.

  • Catoblepas
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • Catoblepas
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year 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
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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
          5
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year 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
              6
              ·
              1 year 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.

              • Sasha
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You just described the problem back to me, artists should get paid for creating, I don’t think being paid for something you love takes away from it, but that’s an opinion and I understand people have their own. I think that’s just an extension of the beauty of art (having our own opinions about it). Profit motives are the exact problem here, not a justification to make it worse.

                If Adobe is doing that, then that’s awesome. If they’re making tools to replace artists, instead of tools to help them, significantly less awesome.

                My problem is that lots of tools do exist that replace artists, and most do steal their training data. I would love for these things to change, maybe we’ll make it out okay, but we need to make noise.