maybe the project table was upside-down and things ended in the wrong way
AI doesn't even make art is the thing without human art to train on and remix its useless horrorific nonsense. Capitalists just found a way to legalize plagarizing for themselves while keeping it illegal to redistribute their hoarded IPs.
the funniest part is that copyright DOESN'T COUNT ON AI ART because of the monkey incident (peta indirectly helped artists in this case by allowing the monkey selfie, and thus all things not made by humans to be public domain iirc)
I think when companies do it they copywrite it as if the person who prompted the AI made it, and treat the AI like the "tool". That way they can copywrite it.
i read it somewhere that nobody can copyright material that is not made by humans, but i don't know anything about copyright tbh
still funny that a monkey that was curious about a random camera made people question copyright at one point
useless horrorific nonsense
"AI sucks because it's shitty art" is really not a strong argument for people to go for.
For one, it appears to be largely based on the misconception of AI as only being low effort output from already dated models. Like someone put in "hot girl" and it gave them a generic samey picture like thousands of others. But models are already getting to the point where it's harder to tell at a glance whether it's AI, if the person put in even a little effort into prompting.
For another, it indirectly puts down less skilled artists. Those who are doing their best, but have a lot to learn and get better at (which is probably most people who draw). It implies the issue is that the output doesn't look good enough, but most illustrators will have flaws in what they draw, sometimes even as a conscious stylistic effect if they are skilled enough to be looping back around to manipulating style in that way. The notable difference with AI generated images is a mismatch in effort and choices made; for example, images that are super detailed, yet make basic anatomy errors.
Lastly, it has a fatal problem, which is that if AI tech gets good enough to fool most people at a glance (and some of it is arguably already getting there), then all you need to do is not disclose that AI was used and people will accept it as legitimate "art".
So did you willingly ignore the rest of my post where i quite literally specified that its horrific nonsense when it isnt trained on tons of already existing human made art? And im not even talking about the visual appeal of the art or whatever im talking about how when AI tries to make stuff when its either untrained, or is trained on other AI content it starts to breakdown and cease functioning. It just generates stuff that doesn't make any sense for the prompts. Good job replying to a post i didnt even make.
You are getting at a core of the issue I have with people who are against AI art and AI in general. The issue needs to based on who benefits materially from the use of AI and not on these abstract ideas of "it looks bad" or "it's stolen".
The fundamental problem with this is "it looks bad" is subjective and not unique to AI produced art. And "it's stolen" is also a bit silly because I'm sure everyone has heard "all art is derivative". Artist inspire other artists and work from that inspiration.
So, while I don't really disagree with these arguments in theory. They get you nowhere.
The discussion needs to be focused on what a complete flaw it is in our society that only a small number of billionaires and capitalist are the ones actually gaining material benefits from the use of AI. Not to improve workers conditions, not to make our lives easier, not to give artist more tools for inspiration. But to increase profits by removing the cost of our labor all together.
Fundamentally, no one would be upset with AI art if it was used by existing artist and non artists to make cool looking shit. We are only upset that artist are being exploited and having their livelihood threatened. AI and AI art especially are just exposing that already existing structure of labor exploitation to a massive degree.
I really hope people can see past the existing structures to a better way. These technologies that SHOULD just be a tool to use, or not use, are instead controlled for the interest of capitalists profit. In the short term this means fighting for unions and worker protections. But we need to understand that in the long term you can't overcome the invention of the latest "Loom" of the industry. We need to fight this concentration of ownership and interest and move past these outdated forms of labor relationships that only benefit the rich.
From the first comment:
AI doesn't even make art ... without human art to train on
context matters
Capitalists just found a way to legalize plagarizing for themselves while keeping it illegal to redistribute their hoarded IPs.
Is the main point you're overlooking.
useless horrorific nonsense
😅
AI doesn’t even make art is the thing
I don't like genAI either, but I don't think this is a good argument. Yes it does depend on human made art to exist in the first place, but saying that what it produces is not art is wrong. Ruby was an elephant that was famous for painting. If this qualifies as art, then art is not exclusive to humanity. In the case of genAI you just have machine made art instead of human made art.
That’s a good point, Joanna Maciejewska, but I don’t see what laundry and dishes have to do with white genocide in South Africa. Claims of targeted violence exist with “Kill the Boer” cited as racial. However, evidence suggests that farm attacks are part of general crime, not systematic genocide, though perspectives vary.
my classmate who makes music on spotify was scared when he found out about suno ai and how it makes music faster than him (who makes 1 song in a few months)
yea... we do not live in that epic science world we want :(
How good is the quality of music though? If it’s anything like AI art, animation, videos, or writing then it leaves a lot to be desired. Even the most impressive AI video generator looks good but begins to show more and more cracks the longer it goes on.
The music sucks if you actually listen to it (and not just have it as background noise) but it doesn't stop get rich quick grifters from flooding Spotify with it. Also there's Word going around that Spotify uses ai songs in their own playlists so they don't have to pay royalties
vocals are tin can quality, i heard.
that guy was scared shitless and people listen to grifter-made music advertised as the modern equivalent of lofi hiphop to study to with words like "cute" "soft" "dog" "cat" as titles of those compilation videos so i guess it's good enough to fuck over audio artists
Noone is stopping one from writing or making art; the implication here is one should be paid a living for it. The issue here is captialism not the technology. Artisans having reactionary takes is not new.
... yes. The issue is capitalism rather than the technology. I think that's very much the implication of that sentence. More specifically, the thing "stopping one from writing or making art" is, you know, capitalism. She's not saying "AI bad", she's saying "way we use AI bad". What's reactionary about this?
Where is the implication that "one should be paid a living for [writing or making art]"? Doing (your own) dishes and laundry is not something you typically get paid to do, so suggesting to swap it with writing or making art doesn't really scream "pay me for writing or making art" to me.
Finally, why shouldn't writers or or makers of art be paid a living for writing or making art?
Finally, why shouldn’t writers or or makers of art be paid a living for writing or making art?
That's a problem under capitalism; the allocation of resources. As a commodity if it is provided more efficiently and cheaper by a machine, should we be regressive and hold back that process so that artists can be paid? Should the weaver still be employed at the invention of the loom?
These are bourgoise ideals defended due to artisans fearing their own proleterisation. Why isn't the quote in defense of AI doing all four things - the dishes and the laundry, and the art and the writing? Why not socialise the unpaid labour? There's an inherent patriarchy here as well.
Dishes and laundry aren't the same as art. One is manual labor that just has to be done and has tangible utility. The other is creative work that has value to a large part because a human made it. Something that people want to do. Expressing themselves creatively and making something for others to enjoy in one form or another, or to express criticism of some or other aspect of our world (depending on what art it is). That's not something a machine can do in a meaningful way. Using AI and other technology to crank out meaningless slop to keep the masses occupied, that's bourgeois if anything here is. The point of communism is to liberate us all from menial labor and exploitation, from war and strife so we can follow our passions and be truly free, whether that's being an artist, doing science, or whatever. We can disagree if that's exactly the point, or maybe I'm tinged by idealism to some degree. I probably am, growing up in a bourgeois society leaves its marks. But if your idea of progress is that we're just sitting there, watching and reading what the machines tell us is worthy art, then you are the reactionary.
Where's the "inherent patriarchy" in the image? Did you just run out of arguments?
Metaphysical nonsense.
Dishes and laundry aren’t the same as art. One is manual labor that just has to be done and has tangible utility. The other is creative work that has value to a large part because a human made it.
Tangible? How did you decide to draw that arbitary line? Is it tangible if you can touch it? How about writing code? Is the artisan's output not tangible? Is creativity not found in other industries? Is the baker not creative?
Your argument against this is essentially the sophistication involved by devaluing those who do manual labour. You're arguing for the path toward labour aristocracy/petite-bourgoisie to be unobstructed. This is a very reactionary take.
Noone is stopping anybody's "want" to do art and writing. You just want to just tie that to the above.
Where’s the “inherent patriarchy” in the image?
Who does the unpaid labour here? Why is that normalised? Why use that as a juxtaposition here?
Did you just run out of arguments?
No. I'm a marxist. What's your excuse?
I decided to draw the "arbitrary" line at the clear implication of the person who wrote the text in the image that they want to do writing and art. If someone actually wants to do laundry and dishes, sure. But please, show me a noteworthy number of people who like doing those things as much as an artist likes to do art. People don't usually do their dishes for the fun of it, but because it needs to be done to maintain hygiene and stuff. That's the tangible utility I meant. Of course a baker can be creative, or even just like baking. If someone wants to bake bread, let them go nuts. But we still should socialise bread baking because we also need tons and tons of bread to feed people who do something else. We don't need writing and art, not in the same fundamental way at least. We don't need huge, industrial-scale quantities of art and writing. Sure we need an industrial scale of books in some circumstances, but the original writing can still be done by a human. Of course, if you want to read AI novels and watch AI movies, listening to AI music, nobody's stopping you.
How is saying that art is not something that should be AI-generated arguing for a labor aristocracy?
The simple fact a woman is person complaining about having to do chores does not make for "inherent patriarchy". I'm a guy. I do my own laundry and dishes. I'd rather I'd not have to do that and focus on something else. Is that inherent matriarchy now? And even if the patriarchy in this situation isn't just a figment of your imagination, why is the woman saying that she would prefer not having to do the chores a bad thing?
I don't know what I would need an excuse for.
All labour should be socialised. Laundry, dishes, writing, art - it doesn't matter what.
If one wants to create art, let them have at it.
The argument made here that we should gatekeep skilled labour by fighting against mechanisation or automation is reactionary and regressive.
Attempting to draw an arbitary line for the artisan by distinguishing their creativity from other's is not possible without alluding to idealism and mysticism. It is made more obvious when examples of creativity, including in other fields and industry where automation has happened, is recalled.
Division of labour through gender means women disproportionately end up doing unpaid labour including laundry and dishes. The emancipation will include the socialisation of these roles and thereby abolishment of gender. It is irrespective of your personal ability as a man to do the same work.
If this socialisation was helped by automation would you then be saying we should destroy the machines to help preserve the employment of those that do this work for a living? Of course not but you want to apply that standard to artisans by drawing arbitary lines by apparently appealing to the mysticism of creativity.
There's a clearly a recognition of this inferred from the quote. However, that is then juxstaposed with the fact that the labour of artisans should not be socialised. So the writer wants to preserve gatekeeping of the ability to make art in order for some artisans can remain being paid for it.
This reeks of bourgoisie "feminism". The emancipation here is for individual liberty at the expense of class consciousness. The individual wants socialisation of domesticated labour not for universal emancipation but so they could gatekeep who gets to do art. It is individualism for reactionary ideals. Patriarchy is a structural concern, it is not a synonym for misogyny.
It's ok if your excuse is that you are uneducated about this. We are all learning.
I think before we discuss this we we should get our definitions clear? Someone workings as freelance logo designer is different from someone working as an employed illustrator, is different from a "free" artist painting in their atelier etc. A website or UX/UI is different from a picture you hang on your wall; a movie poster might be somewhere in between and is still pop culture unless it's idk some indie movie?
Sometimes "art" or broadly being-creative becomes a commodity which can be sold, too (my wording here is not exact but you get my point). Art courses, cross-stitching, sewing, like, hobby stuff. Modding games can be seen as a new kind of prosumer culture indutry, externalizing costs while reaping the benefits of a more valuable product, indirectly by creating a fanbase/ecosystem or directly by claiming rights on UGC. It's also used to find new talent.
"Art" is just an umbrella term for different kinds of work, and different kinds of products. There's different distribution channels, different degrees of independence and a range of ways on how it interacts with the market.
Metaphysical nonsense.
There's a certain spark in human craft I won't deny, but I agree that a Marxist, or generally a more "cold", view on "art" is usually the way to go. Ultimately humans instruct their LLMs and Diffusion models to create slop, and they will do it and have always done it without them.
Art≠Art
There's no need to have a "cold" perspective to be marxist. Nothing human should be alien. Capital has countless references to nature.
The importance here is not to mystify here to metaphysical nonsense. We should not resort to idealism of where human creativity comes from.
Art is clearly subjective and it is the relationship between the viewer and the art that defines it as art; whether it is exchanged for money or not.
However, what is effectively being requested here is to gatekeep who gets to make that art (only those skilled enough) and that art should be paid for; the defense of proprietorship. It is this that is reactionary while appealing to ludditism.
This reply is probably not directed at you but for anyone who is lurking.
The best use of AI I saw was with my local public transportation authority, who used it to handle the logistics of the operation.
ai cant do anything useful. all it can do is steal from people who actually create
Me too, thanks.
We have dish and clothes washing machines already...
soon enough it will do all of those things and we'll be redundant entirely
Problem is, your laundry and dishes, not to mention bathroom cleaning, still need a lot of manual labour that AI can't do because it does not exist in physical world outside of computer, but the art and writing can be done just inside of computer.
yeah, but people like to draw stuff and compose music by themselves, and not so many people enjoy washing dishes and doing laundry, so...the ideal would be focusing in something doing the wash of dishes and laundry so we can spend time drawing ~~stickmen~~ stuff and making ~~emo songs about love~~ music
Huawei is experimenting with humanoid robots driven by AI so you wouldn't have to be professional programist to order them to do something but it's still the future, though i seen videos with such robots already manning warehouses.
I was just commenting about physical feasibility of things, which idealists like the lady in question don't seem to understand. Which is especially funny considering even that can be traced to capitalism, which don't give a shit into real scientific advances but the quick buck lying on the path of easiest resistance. As is easily checkable by western media and writers spending decades fantasising about such advancements in robotics, but China actually doing more about it in few years once they finally overcame their overexploitation by the west.