157
Pika Labs new generative AI video tool unveiled — and it looks like a big deal
(www.tomsguide.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
157 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
76339 readers
1007 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Cool, another step in the ruining art with AI saga
These are all short clips because they look like ass if you get enough time to actually look at them. But even still, can people just stop with this shit?
Let people do the one truely human thing ffs.
Edit: Let me be clear, AI has good uses. My only argument here is that generating art is not one, especially when the training data is stolen and used for profit.
No one is stopping people from making art, lazy people will use this to do things they want, but artists will make art because that's what they do.
I'm more concerned about the fact that shitty companies will use this sort of thing to put graphic designers out of a job.
This isn't good progress. Even soulless corporate bullshit puts food on the table for someone, soon it'll just make another company a bit richer.
Look I'm not supporting mega rich assholes extracting even more from working people, but would you use the same argument for textile weavers and the Jacquard loom? Sure a lot of people lost their jobs at the time, but most, if not all, respecialized and we got computers in the end so would you say it wasn't good progress? 🤷
Except that this is entirely unecessary, and doesn't create a product we need, and it's certainly not one I want.
I want to support people, I want people to do beautiful incredible things. I don't want a higher production rate of souless art statistically generated by taking the work of thousands of people without their consent, for no good reason.
Replace CEOs with AI, that would be good progress.
I also mentioned in another comment that this technology has some very very good uses, I am convinced creating art is an evil use. I'm a big fan of projects like Talon Voice, you can donate voice samples to help improve their language model to help people who struggle to use a computer with their hands. It's amazing stuff and I love it.
See, that's the crux of the argument I feel. You can't have one without the other, you can't have voice generation for the mute without that technology also displacing voice actors in the process.
That's why I think the Luddite approach doesn't work, we can't forcefully break the machines that are capable of so much good because they're also capable of so much bad.
Instead we should focus on helping those that are most negatively impacted by their existence, while supporting everyone that is already being positively affected by them. (like the UBI mentioned in my other comment)
PS. Totes down for replacing CEOs with AI and distributing their salary among the workers
Textile weavers still exist, they just get paid even less and live in third world countries. “AI” is the same - a lot of the training is done by underpaid folks living in Kenya and Tanzania. They have to label the gore and CP so that the “AI” won’t use it. Post traumatic stress disorder is pretty common…
Advancements like the loom usually just affect one industry (yes, there are ripples in the whole economy) and it's not like we got that, the printing press, the internal combustion engine, the computer, and the telephone all at once. AI, if properly trained, can do nearly any task so it's not just artists that are in danger of becoming obsolete.
Like... That was bad too. What we need to do is ditch capitalism before we automate everything.
It doesn't function if nobody has jobs.
Capitalism optimizes for lazy over good. Who's going to be able to pay rent as an artist in your dystopia
What artists do you know that make money off their art? The starving artist not being able to make money to survive has been a thing since before Van Gogh's time.
We've automated the food making process, but people still make money off of preparation of food, there's always going to be a market for artists, but that market will be different.
These AI things are great tools to assist artists, but the fear mongering gets in the way.
this is such a bad take, I present to you, society. and the hundreds of thousands if not millions, tens or hundreds of millions of employed (either self or through businesses) artists.
and using the "starving artist" as a goal we should transition to just really sucks in concept. I'm not sure you would say the same if it was your profession.
I know ~~reddit~~ lemmy is full of techbros but geez have some compassion for other people. Oh wooweey i can type words and not have to have someone else do an art, I'm an artist now, everyone else can starve
I am an artist, who uses AI to assist me...
So because I don't see AI as a big scary monster coming to devour our souls I'm a Tech Bro and don't have compassion?
But yeah, fear AI all you want, but artists will always be needed even if the bleep Boop machine can do it faster.
Writing prompts for an image generator doesn't make you an artist, lol
Well not in the sense of the word you're using, but there is an art to getting them to do what you want if your doing more than just dumb shit like I post on this account.
There is some technical skill involved in making it output something in the direction you want, but nothing exists until you hit enter, only a vague concept. The process is so detached from the artistic decision making that it is a complete outstrech to call it art. You can never have a personal style doing AI stuff. No vision, no nuances.
There is some technical skill involved in pointing the camera in the direction you want, but nothing exists until you hit the shutter, only a vague concept. The process is so detached from the artistic decision making that it is a complete outstrech to call it art. You can never have a personal style doing photography. No vision, no nuances.
I am also an artist, and I frankly think you are a shite artist if you need to steal other peoples work.
No, this is a tool that does all of the work of an artist. It is absolutely not an assistant.
That's a bad faith argument, and it's actively harmful. Artists are struggling yes, and this just makes that worse, it won't be a separate market that somehow doesn't impact them.
If you think we should actually work to make it harder for artists to do things, that it's actually good that they struggle, then you have some messed up priorities, friend.
It doesn't really do all the work of an artist though. It generates pictures, but consider that a camera also generates pictures of things, and yet photography is considered an art form these days, and one's results from doing that can vary quite a bit between someone who understands both artistic principles and how their tools function, versus someone who does not. Having an image generator does not also entail knowing what to ask the generator for, or how to make any adjustments to it's output if it gives you something that is close to what you envision but not quite there. If anything, I personally suspect a more mature version of the technology will get integrated into art tools in some way rather than looking like it currently does, because a text prompt is a somewhat vague and inexact way to describe an image. If you ask it for a spaceship, for example, it'll give you some sort of spaceship, and if you ask it for a specific spaceship from pop culture it may likely give you that, but if you're imagining a specific design for a spaceship, with specific details, that does not already exist in existing art, it would be very hard to completely describe that just through text, versus if you could start sketching out and have it sort of act as a kind of graphical autocomplete that you can steer in given directions.
Ok so it's absolutely not an assistant right? So say I'm working on a business logo and I'm having a hard time coming up with an idea to branch off of, I use an ai image gen to create a bunch of logos in a bunch of styles, I then use a couple as starting points for a design. How is that not a tool to assist an artist?
Just because you don't see it as a tool to assist an artist's doesn't mean it isn't, people will use any tool for good or evil.
All it means is that at art as a career is dead.
Guess we want everyone working in retail or something
Dey took arrr jeeerbs!
DEEY DOOK DUR DOORBS
This is not the way to look at this. Stop thinking this stuff will replace human art. Until we can simulate a human in the machine (not there yet), art will always be by humans because it is a human endeavor recognized and appreciated only by humans.
These things are tools for a human to use. And like any tool that is used in the hands of the casual or the lazy, it will become very banal indeed once the shininess wears off. With your same outlook you could tell Adobe to stop improving the digital brushes in Photoshop, because art is only for humans.
I think a good analogy is clipart, or those horrible corporate memphis/algeria graphics. They look awful, but they are just good enough at illustrating an idea that many companies will use them rather than hiring an artist. The thing is, corporations almost never want art. They want illustrations.
AI doesn't generate art. Art is about using media in order to convey a perspective on the world and to illicit emotions from the audience. What AI generates is simply the media itself. It isn't capable of having the point of view or life experiences needed to create actual art.
People forget art isn't just a product it's an activity people do.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Have you ASKED artists to draw these things they're supposedly incapable of?
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.
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.
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.
Exactly, personalised art should only be for those who can afford to pay for it. Expanding that privilege to more people is very bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My guy, they stop being an artist because someone stole all their work and fired them for it
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.
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.
We were only meant to be wage slaves /s