Arts have some of the lowest barriers of entry imaginable. Anyone can pick up a pencil and do “art”
Your comment tells me you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products. Your idea of Generative tools giving children a voice is grotesque. Any child can grab a pencil and make a drawing. It is easier than ever for a child to learn visual art as a language or writing as a voice or music as a passion.
But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art. The children of the next generations could be holding the next Shakespeare or the next Miyazaki or the next Steven Spielberg. The children that hobble themselves with machine induced Dunning-krueger have been stolen of that opportunity.
A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act. You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.
There are so many living Artists out there and I love to see hear and read their aesthetic obsessions. I love the musician that mastered the violin as much as I love the urban noise artist that rubs his balls to a contact microphone. I love the novelist that took care to research for his novel by moving and living to the little town they are writing about as much as I love The crude horror short story writer that wanted to exorcise a visceral feeling by adding automatic writing to their new story. I love Tarkovsky and Neil Breen. I love The Russian Arc and saving Captain Alex, especially when watched together in a 2 movie marathon. There was a wide array of outside art that incorporated people with diverse abilities. People who paint without limbs, people whose styles are wildly different from the mainstream. The disabled and incarcerated. You won’t see this art being sold in capitalism because neoliberal capitalism is inherently ableist. so instead capitalist logic suggests that they should wear someone else’s mask. Thus erasing their voices.
A love for art means that you can love and respect what someone else makes. It acknowledges that we are different, that our voices are different and that there are a myriad of forms of communication. Capitalist logic wants to make things uniform and standardized, centralized and dependent of large platforms. Current AI products follow this logic and being critical of it is as valid as criticizing the logic of every good and service that has been coopted and perverted by capitalism
It is hilarious watching people yearn for a communist utopia while trying to silence critics of current production methods. I feel it is only a rhetoric strategy adopted by AI apologists.
My issue with AI in creative fields is that the people that use it seem to hold a contempt towards art as a language. To them creative media that doesn’t follow a certain specification doesn’t exist and holds no value. So they want to jump immediately to the production line notion of a finished product. They don’t believe in the human action of creating a personal language or aesthetic by exploring the limits of language. Language is bypassed by the vending machine. you mix and match a few reductive options and you get your product. AI vending machines are very depending on this mechanistic labeling of art as well. millions of works ranked and scaled through a centralized reductive criteria.
Yes I think it is the AI defenders who are usually reductive in comments.
They reduce the logic of artistic production to capitalist logic: Hence AI art is better because it is “faster” to make and because it looks to a standard or specification to be sold.
They reduce living artists to materials for these vending machines. Always denigrating their work while at the meantime always hungry for the new lora or the virgin territory in training data. Artists are both valuable in bulk but dehumanized, imitated and anonymized.
They don’t believe in human voice or their own voices even. They have infinite hopes for the AI. A big chunk of AI defenders are doomers in a way. Their idea of progress is turning themselves into machines instead of making the system more humane. They always talk about efficiency and judge everything in value scales. Mathematical thinking has no place in art. Especially art made beyond capitalism. The beauty of art is that it transcends value. That it connects us to people with different viewpoints. It expands cultural horizons and subjectivity. Art is useless in the best sense of the word. It is potential beauty looking for a beholder. But that is also a trait that Ai defenders seem eager to bypass. Because art made by centralized models has the tendency to IMPOSE values and solidify subjectivity.
In this respect the generative products we have are a self defeating practice for it’s enthusiasts because it also has the potential to anonymize those who use it. I feel that is the end goal of the consolidation of generative AI models. This is the reason why CEO’s are so obsessed with alignment, censorship and control. It’s not “Skynet as a threat” but rather “Who gets to be Skynet?” Who floods the media with dribble? What AI model creates and sings and speaks for everyone? It’s part of the pitch for large investors.
You could have picked up a pencil a music instrument or a quill, but you choose someone else’s hype cycle. And I feel sorry for the voice we lost.
I’m happy you took a writing class but why do I have to be your exam topic?
you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products.
I’ll be honest and say I debated even reading the rest of your comment because right off the bat you’ve just said some bullshit that anyone who even looks at my posts would know is false. I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.
However, in the spirit of good faith, I did read it and I must say I feel like you’re shadowboxing someone who isn’t me.
But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art.
I did not say this. I don’t know why you’re putting it here.
A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act.
This is what I said and where the misunderstanding seems to begin, because:
You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.
is the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.
I think you’re trying to argue with me as if I’m pro-AI and have made the usual pro-AI arguments when I am not and have not. AI in all of its iterations are to me what algorithms of the bygone era are: tools. You can use a hammer to crudely slam nails into a 2x4 but you’re not an artist until you build something more than the sum of its parts, whatever tools you use. I don’t use AI. I don’t pay for any AI services. I’ve followed the development of LLMs, stable diffusion, and adjacent technology. I have experimented with it and found it to not be useful in my usual workflow and I don’t see what else I could do with it that hasn’t been done a million times over. I don’t hate the hammer because it’s not immediately useful to me, I just don’t use it and won’t be upset if someone else does. If someone else makes something beautiful with the hammer then I will appreciate it as I do art made with any other tools.
The rest of your essay is more like a generic rant aimed at nobody in particular so I won’t dissect it. The above point applies.
I didn’t take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.
“I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.”
It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”. Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:
“the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.”
But then you are doing this strange double speak: “Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well” “AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.” So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.
If you really don’t use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don’t use? It’s because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?
I repeat the part you didn’t read from a small comment you call “essay”: Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.
We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.
what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism
because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.
You’re either deeply confused about what I said or you’re deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn’t.
You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”.
I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.
“because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.”
It is odd for you to say that that criticism for generative AI amounts to arguments of taste after openly admitting that you disregarded a good amount of the criticism I just wrote. You want a good faith discussion but you haven’t touched my questions:
Is it valid for people to criticize the use of a specific technology that affects their lives and their work?
I current applications of AI have a capitalistic tendencies then is it safe to say that it won’t exist in a post capitalist society?
Isn’t it true that art is available to anyone but all that Gen AI offers is centralization control and cooption of creative resources?
GenAI does have a place in art. Computer generated art gives people a chance to express themselves in a way they otherwise never could. Some people lack the ability to imagine shapes in their minds. This would obviously hamper their ability to draw but with a Image generator they could just write something and have the computer imagine it for them. They then could take a part of that image and add something to it, generate something else that fit with it. This is art. A human using a tool to create something, something that would not have been created otherwise. Or “AI gives a voice to those that don’t have time, dedication or ability to learn a medium”
A practical example.
The primary form of art I interact with is music and so when I hear this: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=RYJAUfCkIaQ I think “Wow this is good”, and it wouldn’t have existed without AI.
But there is always a place for human created art and as long we have enough computing power to use AI there will be a place for AI Art. They are both important because they are both different.
Having a computer “imagine” for them is already hampering their expression. Again you are forcing your capitalist logic to someone else. I have Aphantasia. I cannot formulate images in my head and I cannot remember faces. I think exclusively in verbal or written concepts. I studied drawing in college and I developed a method where I would lay down masses of value on paper with charcoal and the cut them down with an eraser and formulate a concept from that. My approach to drawing is explorative, I would have never developed this system if I hampered my artistic exploration by letting a machine imagine for me. I know artists that have Daltonism and they developed an unusual way to represent color because of that.
The crutch of generative AI erases the expressive potential of outsider art because it’s capitalist logic dictates that “good” is a specific standard imposed by the ethos of tech industry shareholders. It is an insult for someone to tell me that I can’t make art, that I need a generative crutch. It is an insult that someone might dare to take away my voice because it is not a standardized product!
Also I am not gonna tough the music, nope, I’m opening my Spotify playlist right now.
Finally the point is not if there is a place for human art. Ai generated dribble is not art because it bypasses the visceral search for human connection through the development of language; AI generative models under capitalist logic, flatten standardize and patronize human communication. There might be other more useful ways to use that technology , even for creative purposes. But at the moment it is valid and necessary to criticize and denounce the tools we have as a reflection of the neoliberal logic that created them.
All this to say maybe it’s time to stop coopting Anti Capitalist rhetoric to defend a system that feeds off capitalist logic.
Your technique is so cool (/sincere), but a lot of people do not have the time, persistence or passion do develop skills like these. If they get a good idea for something I want them to be able to express it, to enrich the world with the chaos of their mind, and sometimes GenAI is the only tool they have for that.
Everyone has the potential to create something cool, and I don’t want to take away what might be their only tool.
The core of my opinion on the topic isn’t based on anti capitalist rhetoric, it’s a lot simpler than that. I like the things GenAI makes so I like GenAI. If you don’t consider that art I’m fine with that. I still like it and think it has value.
You seem very earnest on your approach and I appreciate that. The point of me making these comments were not to police who should use AI or not, and I apologize if I gave that vibe.
It’s clear we don’t agree in a lot of things: I don’t believe in artistic disability. I like art when it embraces imperfection, when it’s visceral and vulnerable. I even like art when it’s “uncool” So I don’t think an artist needs time money or passion. They just need to pull some of their humanity and put it out there. And someone at least one or two people in 8 billion will see it.
I could go on. I could tell you I don’t like how AI platforms devalue artists while devouring their life’s work. I even think these platforms could have a damaging effect on our culture. And I don’t like how tech corporations want to monopolize everything.
But like you said that is not your interest in that and you are not a corporation, you are an individual that uses their platforms and it would be a mistake to berate you for that. But you seem really interested in expressing yourself. So I just want to end on the idea that someday somewhere you could grab a musical instrument or a brush or a pen and just enjoy the process without self judgement. I’m not saying you are going to find magic or fulfillment, but just that act of unloading emotion, of giving yourself to the act.
It might not warrant tons of engagement in social media, but you might find something truly yours and personal there.
The reason I actually responded to you’re comment is because it was long and interesting so I thought I could get a nice discussion out of it. I’m glad to have been correct.
I didn’t come across as you trying to police AI. You were just being very critical of a tool that I think has a lot of uses. I was trying to bring an alternate point of view to the discussion.
I also don’t believe in artistic disability, my example wasn’t about being unable to make art, it was about making art being just difficult enough for someone that they don’t want to try. Perfection only exists in tightly defined systems, art most certainly cannot be perfect. But I do think some people have who are capable of art don’t wish to learn how do make it to the degree that they can express what they want. I’m not saying they don’t have ability. I’m saying they don’t have the desire.
And even then you can use GenAI do only to small parts of your piece. An artist I follow used GenAI to create videos for their music. The creator of this meme uses it to create small intro pictures for their blog. GenAI has uses in the hands of creative people as well.
I’m an anarchist. As soon as you talk about corporations and value I point to the meme this discussion is under.
Also I don’t use GenAI. I made a couple of pictures and did try to touch them up in order to actually be presentable but in the end it just didn’t work out. I do have a drawing tablet and use it to make drawings. I’ve posted them in my community lemm.ee/c/anaval. I also know the basics of playing a bass guitar. I’m not defending GenAI out of my own need, but because I see potential in it for others.
and like I said previously It’s made some stuff that I really love.
Arts have some of the lowest barriers of entry imaginable. Anyone can pick up a pencil and do “art”
Your comment tells me you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products. Your idea of Generative tools giving children a voice is grotesque. Any child can grab a pencil and make a drawing. It is easier than ever for a child to learn visual art as a language or writing as a voice or music as a passion.
But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art. The children of the next generations could be holding the next Shakespeare or the next Miyazaki or the next Steven Spielberg. The children that hobble themselves with machine induced Dunning-krueger have been stolen of that opportunity.
A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act. You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.
There are so many living Artists out there and I love to see hear and read their aesthetic obsessions. I love the musician that mastered the violin as much as I love the urban noise artist that rubs his balls to a contact microphone. I love the novelist that took care to research for his novel by moving and living to the little town they are writing about as much as I love The crude horror short story writer that wanted to exorcise a visceral feeling by adding automatic writing to their new story. I love Tarkovsky and Neil Breen. I love The Russian Arc and saving Captain Alex, especially when watched together in a 2 movie marathon. There was a wide array of outside art that incorporated people with diverse abilities. People who paint without limbs, people whose styles are wildly different from the mainstream. The disabled and incarcerated. You won’t see this art being sold in capitalism because neoliberal capitalism is inherently ableist. so instead capitalist logic suggests that they should wear someone else’s mask. Thus erasing their voices.
A love for art means that you can love and respect what someone else makes. It acknowledges that we are different, that our voices are different and that there are a myriad of forms of communication. Capitalist logic wants to make things uniform and standardized, centralized and dependent of large platforms. Current AI products follow this logic and being critical of it is as valid as criticizing the logic of every good and service that has been coopted and perverted by capitalism
It is hilarious watching people yearn for a communist utopia while trying to silence critics of current production methods. I feel it is only a rhetoric strategy adopted by AI apologists.
My issue with AI in creative fields is that the people that use it seem to hold a contempt towards art as a language. To them creative media that doesn’t follow a certain specification doesn’t exist and holds no value. So they want to jump immediately to the production line notion of a finished product. They don’t believe in the human action of creating a personal language or aesthetic by exploring the limits of language. Language is bypassed by the vending machine. you mix and match a few reductive options and you get your product. AI vending machines are very depending on this mechanistic labeling of art as well. millions of works ranked and scaled through a centralized reductive criteria.
Yes I think it is the AI defenders who are usually reductive in comments.
They reduce the logic of artistic production to capitalist logic: Hence AI art is better because it is “faster” to make and because it looks to a standard or specification to be sold.
They reduce living artists to materials for these vending machines. Always denigrating their work while at the meantime always hungry for the new lora or the virgin territory in training data. Artists are both valuable in bulk but dehumanized, imitated and anonymized.
They don’t believe in human voice or their own voices even. They have infinite hopes for the AI. A big chunk of AI defenders are doomers in a way. Their idea of progress is turning themselves into machines instead of making the system more humane. They always talk about efficiency and judge everything in value scales. Mathematical thinking has no place in art. Especially art made beyond capitalism. The beauty of art is that it transcends value. That it connects us to people with different viewpoints. It expands cultural horizons and subjectivity. Art is useless in the best sense of the word. It is potential beauty looking for a beholder. But that is also a trait that Ai defenders seem eager to bypass. Because art made by centralized models has the tendency to IMPOSE values and solidify subjectivity.
In this respect the generative products we have are a self defeating practice for it’s enthusiasts because it also has the potential to anonymize those who use it. I feel that is the end goal of the consolidation of generative AI models. This is the reason why CEO’s are so obsessed with alignment, censorship and control. It’s not “Skynet as a threat” but rather “Who gets to be Skynet?” Who floods the media with dribble? What AI model creates and sings and speaks for everyone? It’s part of the pitch for large investors.
You could have picked up a pencil a music instrument or a quill, but you choose someone else’s hype cycle. And I feel sorry for the voice we lost.
I’m happy you took a writing class but why do I have to be your exam topic?
I’ll be honest and say I debated even reading the rest of your comment because right off the bat you’ve just said some bullshit that anyone who even looks at my posts would know is false. I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.
However, in the spirit of good faith, I did read it and I must say I feel like you’re shadowboxing someone who isn’t me.
I did not say this. I don’t know why you’re putting it here.
This is what I said and where the misunderstanding seems to begin, because:
is the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.
I think you’re trying to argue with me as if I’m pro-AI and have made the usual pro-AI arguments when I am not and have not. AI in all of its iterations are to me what algorithms of the bygone era are: tools. You can use a hammer to crudely slam nails into a 2x4 but you’re not an artist until you build something more than the sum of its parts, whatever tools you use. I don’t use AI. I don’t pay for any AI services. I’ve followed the development of LLMs, stable diffusion, and adjacent technology. I have experimented with it and found it to not be useful in my usual workflow and I don’t see what else I could do with it that hasn’t been done a million times over. I don’t hate the hammer because it’s not immediately useful to me, I just don’t use it and won’t be upset if someone else does. If someone else makes something beautiful with the hammer then I will appreciate it as I do art made with any other tools.
The rest of your essay is more like a generic rant aimed at nobody in particular so I won’t dissect it. The above point applies.
I didn’t take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.
“I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.”
It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”. Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:
“the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.”
But then you are doing this strange double speak: “Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well” “AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.” So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.
If you really don’t use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don’t use? It’s because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?
I repeat the part you didn’t read from a small comment you call “essay”: Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.
We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.
because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.
You’re either deeply confused about what I said or you’re deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn’t.
I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.
“because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.”
It is odd for you to say that that criticism for generative AI amounts to arguments of taste after openly admitting that you disregarded a good amount of the criticism I just wrote. You want a good faith discussion but you haven’t touched my questions:
Is it valid for people to criticize the use of a specific technology that affects their lives and their work?
I current applications of AI have a capitalistic tendencies then is it safe to say that it won’t exist in a post capitalist society?
Isn’t it true that art is available to anyone but all that Gen AI offers is centralization control and cooption of creative resources?
GenAI does have a place in art. Computer generated art gives people a chance to express themselves in a way they otherwise never could. Some people lack the ability to imagine shapes in their minds. This would obviously hamper their ability to draw but with a Image generator they could just write something and have the computer imagine it for them. They then could take a part of that image and add something to it, generate something else that fit with it. This is art. A human using a tool to create something, something that would not have been created otherwise. Or “AI gives a voice to those that don’t have time, dedication or ability to learn a medium”
A practical example. The primary form of art I interact with is music and so when I hear this: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=RYJAUfCkIaQ I think “Wow this is good”, and it wouldn’t have existed without AI.
But there is always a place for human created art and as long we have enough computing power to use AI there will be a place for AI Art. They are both important because they are both different.
Having a computer “imagine” for them is already hampering their expression. Again you are forcing your capitalist logic to someone else. I have Aphantasia. I cannot formulate images in my head and I cannot remember faces. I think exclusively in verbal or written concepts. I studied drawing in college and I developed a method where I would lay down masses of value on paper with charcoal and the cut them down with an eraser and formulate a concept from that. My approach to drawing is explorative, I would have never developed this system if I hampered my artistic exploration by letting a machine imagine for me. I know artists that have Daltonism and they developed an unusual way to represent color because of that.
The crutch of generative AI erases the expressive potential of outsider art because it’s capitalist logic dictates that “good” is a specific standard imposed by the ethos of tech industry shareholders. It is an insult for someone to tell me that I can’t make art, that I need a generative crutch. It is an insult that someone might dare to take away my voice because it is not a standardized product!
Also I am not gonna tough the music, nope, I’m opening my Spotify playlist right now.
Finally the point is not if there is a place for human art. Ai generated dribble is not art because it bypasses the visceral search for human connection through the development of language; AI generative models under capitalist logic, flatten standardize and patronize human communication. There might be other more useful ways to use that technology , even for creative purposes. But at the moment it is valid and necessary to criticize and denounce the tools we have as a reflection of the neoliberal logic that created them.
All this to say maybe it’s time to stop coopting Anti Capitalist rhetoric to defend a system that feeds off capitalist logic.
Your technique is so cool (/sincere), but a lot of people do not have the time, persistence or passion do develop skills like these. If they get a good idea for something I want them to be able to express it, to enrich the world with the chaos of their mind, and sometimes GenAI is the only tool they have for that.
Everyone has the potential to create something cool, and I don’t want to take away what might be their only tool.
The core of my opinion on the topic isn’t based on anti capitalist rhetoric, it’s a lot simpler than that. I like the things GenAI makes so I like GenAI. If you don’t consider that art I’m fine with that. I still like it and think it has value.
You seem very earnest on your approach and I appreciate that. The point of me making these comments were not to police who should use AI or not, and I apologize if I gave that vibe.
It’s clear we don’t agree in a lot of things: I don’t believe in artistic disability. I like art when it embraces imperfection, when it’s visceral and vulnerable. I even like art when it’s “uncool” So I don’t think an artist needs time money or passion. They just need to pull some of their humanity and put it out there. And someone at least one or two people in 8 billion will see it.
I could go on. I could tell you I don’t like how AI platforms devalue artists while devouring their life’s work. I even think these platforms could have a damaging effect on our culture. And I don’t like how tech corporations want to monopolize everything.
But like you said that is not your interest in that and you are not a corporation, you are an individual that uses their platforms and it would be a mistake to berate you for that. But you seem really interested in expressing yourself. So I just want to end on the idea that someday somewhere you could grab a musical instrument or a brush or a pen and just enjoy the process without self judgement. I’m not saying you are going to find magic or fulfillment, but just that act of unloading emotion, of giving yourself to the act.
It might not warrant tons of engagement in social media, but you might find something truly yours and personal there.
The reason I actually responded to you’re comment is because it was long and interesting so I thought I could get a nice discussion out of it. I’m glad to have been correct.
I didn’t come across as you trying to police AI. You were just being very critical of a tool that I think has a lot of uses. I was trying to bring an alternate point of view to the discussion.
I also don’t believe in artistic disability, my example wasn’t about being unable to make art, it was about making art being just difficult enough for someone that they don’t want to try. Perfection only exists in tightly defined systems, art most certainly cannot be perfect. But I do think some people have who are capable of art don’t wish to learn how do make it to the degree that they can express what they want. I’m not saying they don’t have ability. I’m saying they don’t have the desire.
And even then you can use GenAI do only to small parts of your piece. An artist I follow used GenAI to create videos for their music. The creator of this meme uses it to create small intro pictures for their blog. GenAI has uses in the hands of creative people as well.
I’m an anarchist. As soon as you talk about corporations and value I point to the meme this discussion is under.
Also I don’t use GenAI. I made a couple of pictures and did try to touch them up in order to actually be presentable but in the end it just didn’t work out. I do have a drawing tablet and use it to make drawings. I’ve posted them in my community lemm.ee/c/anaval. I also know the basics of playing a bass guitar. I’m not defending GenAI out of my own need, but because I see potential in it for others.
and like I said previously It’s made some stuff that I really love.
Fucking BEAUTIFULLY put man! I wish I could upvote this more!
Is that a confession of vote manipulation? Maybe the admins should check your voting history and for alt accounts…