129
Pika Labs new generative AI video tool unveiled — and it looks like a big deal (www.tomsguide.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
128 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 41 points 2 years ago (12 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    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? 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    I can kinda get behind that, but only if it's done right (which I'm absolutely convinced it won't be, thanks to history).

    Even just paying the people who lose their jobs, and helping them transition to other work is bad because voice acting is probably a dream job for a lot of people. We also have to ethically source training data, and I don't really see that happening. After all, who would want to contribute to losing their own job?

    If we could do all that, I think we can agree as a society to protect those jobs instead. I legimately think we can have only the good, but I understand that doing so requires a fight. I'd much rather fight for that than lay down and accept the worst possible option.

    Edit: I'll add further, that this is probably already happening, just for the CEOs. They have the power to create tools capable of replacing them, and to prevent them from replacing them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That's a good attitude to have and I'm not advocating for putting down our arms and waiting for big tech to steamroll us all.

    But as I've mentioned elsewhere, the people making the AI models are fully aware they are contributing to a technology that will take away their own jobs, because they think that it will create other, even more interesting jobs in the process. (see trad artists swearing off photography in it's early days because it was "mechanical and soulless", only to realize it's creative potential years later)

    My advice would be to continue being aware of the negative history of things, but don't let it blind you to the positive aspects either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I don't understand your argument.

    I'm in no way convinced that this will lead to new cool jobs, and I have never heard anyone suggest how that could happen. In all honesty, I'd hate to lose my job as a dev and suddenly the only option in my industry is now "debugging AI mistakes."

    If you want to create cool new jobs, how about doing it without disregard for the people you're hurting? That's entirely possible, but the current system doesn't care about people, it cares about money.

    If we saw the potential in these tools, and decided as a society to just let the machines do all the stuff we don't want to do, and we all got to do whatever meaningful beautiful things our hearts wanted, then sure. But that isn't happening. The system isn't broken so it won't fix itself.

    "Maybe something good will come of all this pain" is a bad philosophy, imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But like, it will happen anyways. You can't stop Musk from shoving Grok down everyone's throats and firing 80% of his work force to replace them with AI drones.

    If we saw the potential in these tools, and decided as a society to just let the machines do all the stuff we don't want to do, and we all got to do whatever meaningful beautiful things our hearts wanted, then sure.

    Yes, literally this, my argument is literally we use all our efforts to fight for this, as making something beautiful out of a shit situation is literally all life has and I feel always will be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    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…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent