129
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
129 points (83.8% liked)
Technology
58418 readers
3883 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't get your meaning actually - are you saying: 'you are in favor of theft in the name of AI', or 'you are agreeing that AI is theft'?
You described machines as efficient, and I am agreeing with you: The machines in question are efficient at stealing. Do you agree with this, or is there some detail in this that offends you?
Oh, well then no, I'm not sure I agree. Doesn't offend me though!
But that's not because I don't think that creators should be paid, I just happen to think they should be paid regardless of how well the work can be monetized. AI is just another tool, like the cotton gin. Useful, maybe not for art, but also not innately good or bad by itself.
I count your virtue of wanting artists to be paid sufficiently signaled. However, by using the common AI defender thought terminating cliche "it's just a tool" you've cut short any rational conversation about how this tool has been used, and will continue to be used, to steal in scale.
Your fantasies sound nice, but why not engage in reality?
Theft of work value from the working class has existed since kings and queens have married their cousins.
Anger at AI for theft is just plainly misdirected. I count your condemnation of theft sufficiently signaled, though.
Okay, so you acknowledge it's theft, you're just offended by the fact that people dislike that kind of theft.
It's mighty convenient for large corporations that are engaging in the theft that you lick their boots.
I completely get the confusion, I don't hold it against you. I never denied that AI models involved theft, i asserted that the problem with AI isn't about theft.
A luddite in today's terminology is someone who opposes new technologies, but The Luddites weren't opposed to the mechanization of their labor per say, they took issue with the commodification of their labor and the private ownership of the machines that aided and sometimes supplanted it. They didn't go destroying the textile mills because of some principled stance against progress, they were going to war against the capital owners who suppressed them and forced them to compete against the machines that were made by their own hands.
The Luddites (rightly) identified the issue with the ownership of the machines, not the machines themselves. You only have half the picture; yes, they've stolen from you (not just your data, but your labor) - but they've also withheld from you the value of that product. It's not the existence of AI that created that relationship, it's capital.
I'm glad you don't hold your confusion against me. Can you escape it for a moment to say whether you actually condemn theft or not?
You're also using a false dichotomy, whether you mean to or not. Textile machines can create more textiles, generative AI can't create more art, because they can't create any art to begin with. And, of course, in the real world that you live in, art is something most people do when they finish the labor that pays the bills.
You also fail to mention the Luddites engaged with reality too, and didn't just talk about ideology all day, like the average Twitter communist is wont to do.
Again, no worries for any misgivings or misunderstandings.
True, AI can't produce art (at least, we can agree that there will always be some absent quality from the product of a generative model that makes human art art), but it can produce many other things of value that does supplant a real person's product. Likewise, there are qualities of art that make it a commodity that can be sold - to pay the bills - that lessen and sometimes corrupts art. Some may even argue that Art can only be something that is done for the sake of itself and for no other purpose; it is good-in-itself. And funnily enough, craftsmen have been saying for literal centuries that machines can't reproduce that particular quality innate in hand-made crafts.
I do remember mentioning, and possibly even advocating, for the Luddite course of action though. You're right, we shouldn't only sit around and talk shit about theft, we should also be doing the thieving ourselves and raiding the textile mills.
On theft; would I condemn theft if I didn't recognize private ownership to begin with? You're twisting yourself in knots; I can't help but think it's because you're trying so hard to 'getch' me.
I thought leftist types were supposed to draw a distinction between private and personal property. The giant thieving corporations you defend are stealing people's personal property and using it for profit.
I realize you're not engaging leftist theory seriously here, but if you were I would recommend this paper on the topic of digital new media as viewed through a Marxist and political economy framework.
Regardless, I don't see the exploitation of user activity as a theft of 'personal property'(nor would marx), it is closer to the private ownership of common resources (i.e. private ownership of land and the resources on it, land being the platform where free human activity occurs, and the raw resource as the data being collected). A leftist might assert user activity and communication as a communally shared resource, not one privately exploited, and the resulting tools that utilize that common resource as one that is collectively shared, not privately owned.
Once again, it's not about theft
"The exploitation of user activity"... telemetry? The People's Telemetry?
I'm sure there's a very nice Utopia where all these things can go together, but when you address one of them at a time, you need to actually take care to not make things worse for the victims of exploitation.
Oh, and of course, great care must be taken to prevent the exploitation for moving from the corporation to the a state apparatus, especially when communication is on the line.
Ah, now this WOULD constitute theft (or at least a severe invasion of privacy), since by all accounts a personal device is expected to be personal property, no?
I was of course referring to public communication shared on public social media (the kind used for model training, in case you've forgotten), not to the private activities one conducts in ones own house (as an example).
For one accusing me of reductionism, you seem quite good at it yourself.
Do let me know when you've had a chance to read that paper.
If somebody's phone is personal data, and they use that phone to draw some pixel art, does that make it private and no longer personal?
Does the transition occur simply when somebody shows it to somebody else, at which point the biggest and most powerful person can swoop in and use it for themselves?
Is that a serious question?
You told me it wasn't earlier. Are you changing your opinion?