I’m not even talking about working artists, I’m talking about the masses casting aside any method of self-expression other than the machine provided to them by the capitalists.
Because I do not view human self-expression on an individual scale as something that should be automated away as superfluous labour. Art creation is already socialized, that’s the entire idea behind anyone of any skill level being able to do it. Cooking, indie film, paintings, memes, shitposts, doodles, cartoons, singing, music, all of these avenues of expression have readily accessible entry points, and some of them like pencil drawing don’t cost more than 2 dollars a year no matter what skill level you are. I view art created by the masses as the proletariat attempting to reclaim the humanity that capitalism has alienated them from. Relegating that last vestige of connection with their fellow workers is not only dystopian, but antithetical to communism’s end goal of de-alienating the proletariat.
The internet is a communication network. A phone is a machine. I don’t see how these items are replacing anything except less-efficient technologies. If that’s what you want to argue human art is then that’s where we disagree. Human expression isn’t a “technology” that can be automated into obsolescence, because at the end of the day, why? What is accomplished by allowing a machine to create a mono-culture where all works are inevitably the same?
It’s so weird to see people argue that on the one hand AI generated art is slop that nobody wants to see, and on the other that it’s going to make artists obsolete.
“The enemy is both weak and destined to fail by its mere merits while simultaneously strong and will cause in-groups doom if not fought with the most severe measures”
There are a lot of presumptions there that are not a given. Maybe you could clarify what you are alluding to isn’t an appeal to the metaphysical concept of human creativity? We should be dialectical materialists after all.
Because I do not view human self-expression on an individual scale as something that should be automated away as superfluous labour. Art creation is already socialized, that’s the entire idea behind anyone of any skill level being able to do it. Cooking, indie film, paintings, memes, shitposts, doodles, cartoons, singing, music, all of these avenues of expression have readily accessible entry points, and some of them like pencil drawing don’t cost more than 2 dollars a year no matter what skill level you are. I view art created by the masses as the proletariat attempting to reclaim the humanity that capitalism has alienated them from. Relegating that last vestige of connection with their fellow workers is not only dystopian, but antithetical to communism’s end goal of de-alienating the proletariat.
The internet is a communication network. A phone is a machine. I don’t see how these items are replacing anything except less-efficient technologies. If that’s what you want to argue human art is then that’s where we disagree. Human expression isn’t a “technology” that can be automated into obsolescence, because at the end of the day, why? What is accomplished by allowing a machine to create a mono-culture where all works are inevitably the same?
How does AI’s existence threaten people’s ability to put paint on a canvas?
It’s so weird to see people argue that on the one hand AI generated art is slop that nobody wants to see, and on the other that it’s going to make artists obsolete.
“The enemy is both weak and destined to fail by its mere merits while simultaneously strong and will cause in-groups doom if not fought with the most severe measures”
Where have I heard such thought patterns before.
indeed
There are a lot of presumptions there that are not a given. Maybe you could clarify what you are alluding to isn’t an appeal to the metaphysical concept of human creativity? We should be dialectical materialists after all.