You're viewing a single thread.
Saying that blanket condemnation of a technology is dumb is bad? I agree with the highlighted statement.
AI can allow people to create things they would be otherwise unable to create due disabilities. How is this even a debateable point?
Lower classes of people often don't have the time to learn skills like painting or music to the same degree as people born into the ownership class. Being against the development of tools that can make up for some of that lack of skill is classist.
AI is currently used to oppress working class people but under capitalism that is always the end point for any technological advancement. It is not a problem with the tech itself just its implementation.
It's bad under capitalism. If we had a different system where artists didn't need to work for their livelihood, having them freely give their works to AI development in order to create AI art might be interesting. That's not the world we live in though.
Bringing disabilities into it isn't gonna outweigh the fact that corporations are currently stealing the work of individual people for their gain, without compensation to those people.
I would also say that learning how to art good has very few hurdles in front of it in current year. Most artists I know and have paid for art have never formally studied art at all. You really just need an art program, which are free (for real or for pirates) and either a dedicated art tablet (cheap ones cost less than 100$), or a regular tablet with an art program. Oh and thousands of hours of practice. Which is something you only do if you have the drive to learn, regardless of your monetary situation. Do you think most artists actually impacted by AI art are rich assholes who learned art out of boredom because their family had too much money? That's about as big a group as the amount of rich people who learn carpentry because they have free time. Which is to say: very very few.
But conversely I could point you at dozens of people from developing countries right that I have interacted with, who have been able to live comfortable lives by learning art and doing commissions over the internet. Yea we should really get on task stealing from them so that some Silicon Valley asshole can make another billion dollars. Sterling logic.
Also, is it abelist to say that if someone can't invest those hours, they should not be able to do good art? I don't think so. Like any skill, you have to hone it and get good over time through experience. If you can't put in the time to learn it after you work your day job (literally me), then that sucks, but that's not a disability. And if you do have a disability, I guess it's okay to go to a carpenter and demand they give you some furniture, because you can't make it yourself. Makes total sense. I would support going to Ikea to demand your furniture, but that is where the comparison breaks down, because corporations don't make art.
Also, to tackle this from another angle: There is no creative process involved in telling an AI to make you a picture. Actually ZERO. You aren't being creative by writing "Woman drinking Tea Art Station High Quality Red Hair Name of real artist I want you to steal from" into the prompter and then discarding the first seven outputs because they have too many fingers and the teacup looks weird.
Saying that we should join into the exploitation because it's inevitable under capitalism is just you wanting your treats and working backwards from there. No ethical consumption under capitalism wasn't meant as an instructional manual. You are still meant to not partake in the stuff you don't have to partake in if you can help it.
corporations are currently stealing the work of individual people for their gain, without compensation to those people.
AI referencing hand made images/writing to build an algorithm to produce similar images/writing is not stealing. Its even less stealing than Piracy is. The harm caused by protection of Intellectual Property, and the direct benefits it poses for capitalists, far outweighs any damage to artists who might lose their elevated living standards because now a person who hasn't invested thousands of hours can get a share of their profit.
and thousands of hours of practice. Which is something you only do if you have the drive to learn, regardless of your monetary situation.
Time poverty is a symptom of financial poverty. Read some fucking theory. Training to become an artist is costly and those who cannot pay those costs are often of lower classes. When lower class families are able to raise an artist it is often at the cost to other siblings.
I could point you at dozens of people from developing countries right that I have interacted with, who have been able to live comfortable lives by learning art
"I'm a labor aristocrat." Western Imperialism is giving you access to treats that would be outside your financial means if the artist living conditions weren't shit or if you had to obtain them at local prices.
Art as a means of lifting individuals out of poverty has long been a trick to convince people living under oppressive capitalism into having some sort of hope for a better life. It is just another repackaged version of the entrepreneur millionaire who pulled themselves up by their boot straps.
Like any skill, you have to hone it and get good over time through experience. If you can't put in the time to learn it after you work your day job (literally me), then that sucks, but that's not a disability.
Still unable to see the classist brain worms staring you in the face.
Your "another angle" is ludicrous. It takes less work to snap a photo than it does to make a good AI image. Is photography not an art form? Composition and knowing what is good or bad is a major part of art and is as important with AI art as photography. People said the same bullshit about about digital music in the early 2000s and digital drawing/painting in the early 10s.
Saying that we should join into the exploitation because it's inevitable under capitalism
I didn't say that. I said that a blanket rejection of AI (or any tech) is stupid. The highlighted part of the OP specifically says that.
just you wanting your treats and working backwards from there.
Are you really trying to call me a "Treat Defender." Art is "treats" regardless of whether they are boutique hand crafted by 3rd world artists or whether they are AI generated. I'd argue that unless you are sure the artists you are paying have unimpeachable political views, you demanding everyone consume only the over priced labor intensive option is the real treat poisoned take.
"AI referencing hand made images/writing to build an algorithm to produce similar images/writing is not stealing."
Shut the fuck up and go die in a ditch, thanks. I won't waste more time with you
So piracy is stealing? Sneaking into a movie theater without a ticket is stealing? Using a reference photo you didn't take for a painting is stealing?
Your position is without merit and having been exposed to the truth you lash out in anger like a petulant child. With comrades like these who needs reactionaries.
My lib in christ do you not understand the difference between a corporation as opposed to an individual?
It's the fucking difference between pirating a Warner Bros movie and pirating some indie movie that the person making it self-published on their own dime.
So shut the fuck up about merit you fool. You don't merit my time or attention, nor anoyne elses opinion on this site. Change your name to Libjones to reflect your allegiances.
The reason piracy is not stealing is because information can be cloned freely. It has nothing to do with who you are pirating from. Stealing is stealing. Copying is not stealing. AI doesn't even copy. It mimics other works. Is putting on an unlicensed stage production of a fan written sequel to an Indy film stealing?
Independent Artists are not working class. They do not get paid in wages and they control the means of production. They are petit-bourgeoise.
Is stealing from a small privately owned corner store less ethical than stealing from a big chain store? no. The fact is neither of them are allies of the working class because they have a leg up on the non-ownership class and survive off exploitation. (some petit-bourgeoise are allies of the working class but they are statistically insignificant)
Stop it with the name calling. It makes your arguments look even weaker than they already are. Stop telling me I'm not worth your time and then responding to me as it proves you have little self control. And don't call me a Lib when you are the one arguing in favor of intellectual private property rights.
Engage with my arguments or disengage.
It's probably best for you to stop talking, because you keep revealing yourself as an idiot.
The enemy isn't anyone with two real in their pocket, the enemy is the people who actually have the money.
Absolutely reprehensible. Just leave and go back to hang out with the Borger King. He shares your views.
Maybe you are right. Maybe I am an idiot to think I could have a rational discussion with a treat spoiled labor aristocrat. You just keep name calling and saying "nuh uh." so if you don't have anything useful to say just go back to your bespoke hand crafted furry porn.
Independent Artists are not working class. They do not get paid in wages and they control the means of production. They are petit-bourgeoise.
This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific. (And its vaguely shitty though not as bad to use it as an excuse for why its ok for individuals to plagiarize from independent artists).
Like I'm sorry I know that technically under the terms definition an independent artist barely scrapping by on a handful of commissions or patreons who struggles as much as any minimum wage worker to make ends meet is as "petite-bourgiouse" as a jetski dealer who lives comfortably. But there are two things I gather from that
- Them technically falling under the same umbrella doesn't excuse treating them the same because the material conditions they are facing are different. One is clearly vulnerable to exploitation, the other simply isnt in the same way.
- Honestly? We probably need new terms if these two things fit the same definition as the definition currently stands, because they are materially different in so many ways. I refuse to be a slave to Marxist definitions as they currently stand if they cease to be useful to describe our material reality, and I'd say this is a pretty clear case of them not productively describing our material reality.
Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism. Particularly in the case of a bigger fish being the plagiarizer, whether that bigger fish be AI companies or situations like James Sommerton plagiarizing smaller creators.
This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific.
Being happy that your enemy (capitalists) are hurting a fence sitter (artists) is not horrific. Call me an accelerationist if you like but I don't think having a bunch of artists that are pissed off at the capitalist world order is a bad thing. On the contrary if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs they will actively work to maintain the status quo.
Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism.
Why? All professions are equal from janitors to doctors to teachers to miners to ditch diggers. Saying that artists are special and deserve protection from automation, which no other profession has, is silly. Nearly every other profession has been through the same struggles that artists are going through. Artists are lucky it took this long for their job to be automated. Why should anyone be protected from the ravages of capitalism if we are not all protected? Demanding that a single niche profession should be spared from being subjected to the suffering caused by class war is a weird ideological brain worm with no materialist basis. That is not working class solidarity that is Arts worker supremacy.
I'm not going to respond to most of this because its just completly misguided but I did want to zero in on probably the worst part.
if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs
Are you under the impression that the majority of artists are currently in this position lol? Like is that where your brain is broken on this issue you think most people who draw or write for a living are comfortable?
"misguided" You just refuse to face the fact that you are putting arts workers on a pedestal separate from the rest of the working class. They don't deserve job security more than anyone else and they aren't being threatened more than any other workers.
if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs
This was said as an extreme end on a sliding scale. It is not my view of how things currently are. Its true of all people the more comfortable they are the less revolutionary potential they have.
Its pretty telling that the only argument you choose to discuss is an argument I wasn't making.
AI can allow people to create things they would be otherwise unable to create due disabilities. How is this even a debateable point?
Lower classes of people often don't have the time to learn skills like painting or music to the same degree as people born into the ownership class. Being against the development of tools that can make up for some of that lack of skill is classist.
Sorry, but this is a joke, right?
It is not a problem with the tech itself just its implementation.
I would encourage you to read "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" by Langdon Winner.