This is such a bad faith argument, AI does nothing but enrich the wealthy, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn to create, you’re intentionally ignoring the root cause here.
I’m not, believe me I’m a card carrying member of my countries communist party.
But unfortunately capitalism isn’t going away anytime soon (hence why artist ask to be paid comission instead of just producing art for arts sake) so we have to live with it and do the best we can with the situation we have. And part of that is not trying to make art less accessible because of kneejerk reactions to something new.
I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just owned up to that you don’t care and you just want to use it instead of whining about reactivity and some nebulous concept of accessibility.
People should be free to create art however they want with whatever tools they want without people harassing them for it.
And it’s also made art objectively more accessible.
I volunteer once a month to teach a computer science class at an after school club for kids with disabilities. And when I showed them AI generation and let them play with it on their own, they are ecstatic and I’ve never seen them happier the whole time I’ve been going there. Some of those kids can barely hold a pencil and can’t even draw a stick man, then suddenly they’re making comic strips, or there own Marvel OCs in a high fidelity that they would be physically incapable of reaching on their own. Those kids have vast wells of creativity and this technology allows them to express that, and I will defend it against anyone for that reason alone.
I get the arguments against it. I hate the spam of AI slop too, but being staunchly against the technology itself is nothing but eleitsm.
The technology is used to separate art from artist. How it is being used is inherently problematic. The tool is problematic. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn’t make it any less true.
There are myriad ways for children to create and enjoy art. Punching a text string into a machine that vomits out stolen work is not art.
For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.
For second I want working class people to be able to produce whatever art they want however they want, without houlier-than-thou elitists telling them they can’t.
If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn’t have people harassing you for doing so.
For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.
See definition 2a. Art is a luxury.
If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn’t have people harassing you for doing so.
Except to achieve that joy, you have to steal from people who have to actually work. Gen AI is designed to plagiarize the work of artists for the sake of replacing them. You aren’t siding with the workers, you’re siding with the parasite class.
I mean, no, even ignoring the whole licencing argument you can just generate you model from explicitly donated data, so it’s not “designed” to plagiarise.
This is such a bad faith argument, AI does nothing but enrich the wealthy, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn to create, you’re intentionally ignoring the root cause here.
I’m not, believe me I’m a card carrying member of my countries communist party.
But unfortunately capitalism isn’t going away anytime soon (hence why artist ask to be paid comission instead of just producing art for arts sake) so we have to live with it and do the best we can with the situation we have. And part of that is not trying to make art less accessible because of kneejerk reactions to something new.
You have drunk the koolaid, my friend.
I’d have a lot more respect for you if you just owned up to that you don’t care and you just want to use it instead of whining about reactivity and some nebulous concept of accessibility.
But it’s both.
People should be free to create art however they want with whatever tools they want without people harassing them for it.
And it’s also made art objectively more accessible.
I volunteer once a month to teach a computer science class at an after school club for kids with disabilities. And when I showed them AI generation and let them play with it on their own, they are ecstatic and I’ve never seen them happier the whole time I’ve been going there. Some of those kids can barely hold a pencil and can’t even draw a stick man, then suddenly they’re making comic strips, or there own Marvel OCs in a high fidelity that they would be physically incapable of reaching on their own. Those kids have vast wells of creativity and this technology allows them to express that, and I will defend it against anyone for that reason alone.
I get the arguments against it. I hate the spam of AI slop too, but being staunchly against the technology itself is nothing but eleitsm.
The technology is used to separate art from artist. How it is being used is inherently problematic. The tool is problematic. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn’t make it any less true.
There are myriad ways for children to create and enjoy art. Punching a text string into a machine that vomits out stolen work is not art.
Can you give an actual reason why? Without using esoteric terms like “soul”
Let me get this straight: you’re a “communist”, but you want working class people to suffer so that you can have a luxury? Okay…
No.
For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.
For second I want working class people to be able to produce whatever art they want however they want, without houlier-than-thou elitists telling them they can’t.
If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn’t have people harassing you for doing so.
See definition 2a. Art is a luxury.
Except to achieve that joy, you have to steal from people who have to actually work. Gen AI is designed to plagiarize the work of artists for the sake of replacing them. You aren’t siding with the workers, you’re siding with the parasite class.
Edit: screenshot with less clutter.
I mean, no, even ignoring the whole licencing argument you can just generate you model from explicitly donated data, so it’s not “designed” to plagiarise.