124
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 05 Oct 2024
124 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13483 readers
887 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I get that socialists will naturally be sympathetic to artists who often are not well compensated for their labor. However I think it’s also important that we understand that in order to make a living, independent artists rely heavily on intellectual property law. As such, they tend to want to categorize all AI art as unoriginal and derivative of existing works.
Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate. In doing so it obfuscates the process by which the state creates and enforces a market for intellectual property. Therefore, I don’t think it’s particularly useful argument for socialists to make.
That’s not to say “AI” companies aren’t exploiting the work of unpaid artists. That is definitely still true. We just need to be advocating for solutions that go beyond what capitalist markets can offer.
I don't think it is a particularly ineffable quality though? It's art because another human did it, and it really doesn't have to be much deeper than that. That said, I do agree that intellectual property is ultimately blind alley. What most people don't understand is that IP laws are only enforceable in the name of capital.
The "human intelligence is just a sufficient number of TI-88 calculators bolted together, actually" type of bazinga arguments (as often proclaimed by occult-tier techbros like "FrightfulHobgoblin") may exist in part to try to reject that idea.
I think I disagree with the idea that art is art because a human created it. I think art is art because it provides a particular kind of experience to us as humans. Whether or not a human made the art by hand, with a machine, or if it was simply an item someone found in nature it’s all still art. Even curating art is art.
That said AI art is still a product of human creativity. It’s abstracted by a few layers of technology sure and most of the people that build or use the models don’t know what good art is. However bad art is still art. People get drunk at paint nights and create shitty imitations of famous paintings but it’s still art as reticent as I am to admit it.
every single time the AI argument comes down to this. "oh you just don't trust AI cos youre a rube who believes in a soul" no motherfucker I'm just not some fucking anti-intellectual who has decided, apropros of NO research into neuroscience, that I know how the brain works and it MUST be analogous to something algorithm based machines can understand
you genuinely don't know what you're talking about, and you have to take so many intellectual shortcuts to derive your position that you are not worth taking seriously
Who are you arguing against? I never said AI was analogous to a human brain. It’s plainly not.
here?
unless my lying eyes deceive me
When I say replicate I mean replicate an output. I.e. AI can be used to create images that are unique but categorically indistinguishable from various types of digital images that we would classify as art. I did not mean to imply that the AI models which currently exist can replicate processes that occur in the human mind.
I understand why there might be some confusion and I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I genuinely dislike calling these models “neural nets” or “AI” because that implies they function as a human mind would. Anyone who understands the basics of both should know that’s not at all true.
As I said elsewhere, the "human intelligence is just a sufficient number of TI-88 calculators bolted together, actually" type of bazinga arguments (as often proclaimed by occult-tier techbros like "FrightfulHobgoblin") may exist in part to belittle actual artists for the sake of boosting the treat printers (or the treat printer prompters) to artist status.
that's what's so insane to me. for the longest time, STEM folk were all about 'artists aren't worth respecting' 'oh arts degree? just put the fries in the bag lmao'
then suddenly AI art comes about and then it's 'look at my art! AI makes better art than anyone and it's imperative we dump everything into it! you must respect my AI art! you must treat me like an artiste'
and now that it's clear it's a grift, it's 'art is dead, we will never beat AI, artists are back to not worth respecting'
once again, tourists visiting every creative medium they can to try and find fresh rubes for their machine
I've seen that shit here too. Today.
I think the ideological core of it is the boosters want cheap treats, or even want to feel like artists as "prompt engineers," and refuse to even acknowledge the costs and consequences and would rather shit on working-class artists, writers, and other imperiled people that are supposed to be comrades. No leftist I can respect goes there.
Yeah I think what AI is exacerbating is the tension between creativity and commodity. Businesses don't celebrate art, they seek profits. Images, articles, music, and whatever else are all simply products to sell under capitalism. Turning every artist into a copyright lawyer won't change the fact that their creations are ultimately still commodities.
I see a lot of arguing over the definition of "art" but that's beside the point. The problem is the entire bourgeois concept of property and the way capitalism impoverishes the working class so that they must spend their lives selling their labor.
Most of the people posting here currently live under capitalism. Unless you have solutions you want to advocate for now that for some reason you left unsaid in your post, it sounds more like a "stop complaining" proposal.
I haven't seen that for some time, unless you're broad brushing people that don't like when artists stop getting commissions or lose their livelihoods entirely.
In the current economic system you're saying that artists trying to get paid for making art should effectively cease to exist.
Nah this is lib shit.
No attacking artists for trying to avoid having their work (labor) stolen is lib shit. I am not arguing with you because there is nothing to argue about with a liberal.
I just noticed that you're arguing with a 4 day old account that name-dropped me in the title of one of his own threads.
That’s not what I’m saying though. It’s more that I think arguing for better protections under IP law is akin to participating in get out the vote campaigns for democrats. If the goal is to better conditions for working people including artists, neither of those avenues will lead you anywhere.
Again.
Post your your supposed "solutions" to advocate for.
Otherwise you still read like you're a treat printer enjoyer that wants everyone to stop complaining, no matter how the planet burns.
You’re only reading me that way because you’re lumping my arguments in with all the pro AI nonsense that’s out there. I honestly don’t care for any of the slop AI models tend to produce and it’s not reasonable to assume that I do.
Also my arguments stand on their own. Even if there are no near term solutions to the plight of artists that doesn’t mean reifying the concept of intellectual property is worth anything.