this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
129 points (83.8% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2936 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Custodian1623@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Have you ASKED artists to draw these things they're supposedly incapable of?

[–] zazo@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 1 points 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 -1 points 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 0 points 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 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 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 -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] zazo@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As a human I can't imagine them so how would I.

Also money