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.

  • Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 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
      ·
      11 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
        ·
        11 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.

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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
          6
          ·
          11 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
            ·
            edit-2
            11 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
              ·
              11 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
                ·
                edit-2
                11 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
            ·
            11 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.

              • zazo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                11 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.

                • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months 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.