Oh the Ai art generator has no "soul" and it's soy and reddit? This precious art form (illustrating things that other people pay you to, a medium dominated almost entirely by furries, porn, and furry porn) is being destroyed by the evil AI? I'm sorry that the democratization of art creation is so upsetting to you. I've brought dozens of ideas to life by typing words into a prompt and I didn't have to pay someone $300 to do so.
I think it's more about harming working class artists, these people spend a lot of time studying and drawing. It's very unfair that now the industry is just going to remove them after always treating these artists like shit.
I think AI art is a cool gimmick, especially for people who can't draw, it's fun to create something weird or cute. But when you start replacing people with machines, you are dehumanizing the entire industry. It's awful to have people being laid off and getting replaced by machines, when they could build these machines to help the people who work in this industry instead.
As we all know, the cotton gin was awful because it laid the serfs and slaves off and they spent their whole lives learning the craft of removing seeds from cotton only to be replaced. It would be better to keep them in their place!
You are a textbook reactionary as called out in Das Kapital. You should be worried about how to make this technology accessible to all and ensuring protections for technologically displaced workers, not about saying it should be destroyed or sidelined.
I'm strongly convinced the majority of this site does not understand scientific socialism or the history of scientific advancement at all.
People here are unironically using the liberal concept of intellectual property to castigate AI art. Like most things, X doesn't suck in general. X sucks under capitalism. Do people here seriously believe that AI art would just not exist in a socialist or communist society or that a principled communist party would push to ban AI art as counterrevolutionary and reactionary? Of course not, because that's a ridiculous thing to suggest.
Plus, there's a whole bunch of mystic woo to differentiate between two sets of pixels (because we're comparing AI art to human art produced with Photoshop, in other words digital visual art). "But AI art isn't produced by humans, so it's deficient somehow." And who created those AI algorithms in the first place? AI art is ultimately still steered by humans by virtue of those AI algorithms and programs being created by humans. Therefore, all AI art is human art. I made the thing that made that other thing, therefore I made that other thing. To deny this would be to say that if I dropped a paintbrush onto a blank canvas, I didn't create the painting, gravity or the paintbrush did.
The only difference is that there's a further degree of separation from the human and the art, but you could say the same thing about Photoshop. The human is just moving their mouse and stylus a lot. It's up to the OS and Photoshop to interpret those mouse/stylus movements as something meaningful. The OS/Photoshop exists as a middle person between the human and the art just as the AI algorithms exists as a middle person between the human and the art. The main difference is that the amount of labor-time is now much less at the cost of producing more derivative art. Like all technologies, there's a tradeoff between choosing one technology over another. It's not like AI art is uniquely derivative from other (human) derivative art like tracing, and I would argue that AI art is at least greater than or equal to tracing as far as creativity is concerned.
And as a final note: you've made a great connection in another post about how these mystical woo style of rhetoric are used by terf reactionaries. So much "womanhood is mystical" followed by "here's why transwomen are actually men." People need to stop thinking in these weird unrigorous terms.
:rat-salute-2: