The better (materialist) argument for being in support of AI (or at least being against the current anti-AI movement) would be more along the lines that Luddites were wrong because they were fighting the means of production, which is absolutely pointless because that is just fighting the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. The only way to solve the issues with AI and its impacts on labor would be to attack the relations of production, which would remove the need to actually do anything about the technology itself (good thing too, because the sheer amount of effort that would be required to remove all generative AI from existence and keep it suppressed indefinitely would make overthrowing an entire social order look easy by comparison).
The linked argument does not cover this, it is instead comparing it to the aesthetics of reaction, which is the least useful thing that could be done unless they're just looking for a talking point.
I agree, I'd just like to hand it to the luddites for figuring out the core issue. I don't think them not getting the solution correct is really making them wrong, sort of just proto-right
Being against the current anti-AI art movement is reactionary because it's mostly just a labor movement looking for regulation. Nobody really wants to destroy the technology or suppress the supposedly inevitable march of technology (though the "inevitability" of that I think is questionable), they just want corporations to vow not to use this shit to replace artists, and want to ensure artists that make plenty of creative decisions are still valued by the general public.
The better (materialist) argument for being in support of AI (or at least being against the current anti-AI movement) would be more along the lines that Luddites were wrong because they were fighting the means of production, which is absolutely pointless because that is just fighting the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. The only way to solve the issues with AI and its impacts on labor would be to attack the relations of production, which would remove the need to actually do anything about the technology itself (good thing too, because the sheer amount of effort that would be required to remove all generative AI from existence and keep it suppressed indefinitely would make overthrowing an entire social order look easy by comparison).
The linked argument does not cover this, it is instead comparing it to the aesthetics of reaction, which is the least useful thing that could be done unless they're just looking for a talking point.
I agree, I'd just like to hand it to the luddites for figuring out the core issue. I don't think them not getting the solution correct is really making them wrong, sort of just proto-right
Being against the current anti-AI art movement is reactionary because it's mostly just a labor movement looking for regulation. Nobody really wants to destroy the technology or suppress the supposedly inevitable march of technology (though the "inevitability" of that I think is questionable), they just want corporations to vow not to use this shit to replace artists, and want to ensure artists that make plenty of creative decisions are still valued by the general public.