I don’t think people realize how dangerous the ability to generate photorealistic images and videos in instants is. If they combine this shit with AR/VR technology (spoiler: they will) it’s over, we are heading straight into Brave New World.
>>2416560Fuck you retard, this is literally the most important issue right now. America, ruled by the fascist Republican Party, passed a law banning the regulation of AI.
Do you realize how destructive this is going to be?
>>2416527I don't know about banned, but it should be heavily regulated to the point that it's instantly identifiable, and you have to jump through enough hoops that it's not preferable to hiring real artists.
e.g. if you're making a movie and any part of it has AI-generated content, there has to be a giant red warning message before the movie starts that says
<THIS MEDIA CONTAINS AI GENERATED CONTENTIf you generate AI art, the AI model should be legally bound to put a visible stamp on it identifying it as AI-generated.
>>2426375lol I'm just currently rereading HPMOR
I understand it's 'cringe' and Yudkowski is kind of a lunatic but I still think it's good
>>2416668another facet is how shills for 'AI' are usually lazy shits that themselves posses basically no practical skills whatsoever. they exhibit actual contempt for the time and determination it takes to acquire parctical skills and thus for the product of labour.
peak liberal thought to think one can just buy skill by paying openai or whatever grifting corp
>>2426950>Human art will turn into hobby instead of being a commodity to sold on the market. and you won't be able to find this hobby art because it's deluged in aislop
>and because these artist labor is better used somewhere else.like working the coal mines
>>2426978>artisan and petit bourg are different classeslmfao
illiterate retards here love to confidently say the dumbest shit
>closer to a peasantpretty sure we are in a capitalist mode of production everywhere
>>2426999how strange, your reply still did not contain an argument
>>2427003dude there was no cosmic event that caused all peasants in the world to evaporate into dust, the peasantry gradually dwindled into a negligible phenomenon. it is completely possible, but uncommon, to be a serf in 2025
>>2426978>>2426994>>2427000There's no peasant or serf or whatever; wage labour is the basis of agriculture everywhere on the basis of accumulation of value to be competitive, it is completely bourgeois thus the only class relations that emerge are bourgeois (haute or pb) and proletarian. Not everything has to resemble western Europe or America to be bourgeois.
>inb4 farmers are le poorThey're poorer because they''e bourgeois and uncompetitive against bigger landed estates and foreign agricultural production, necessitating protection by the state; not because they're not bourgeois.
>>2426944i see people say this and i cant help but feel like it is out of exaggerating their own resentment for deviantart posters that are mad about getting their niche porn cottage industry displaced. but i so rarely am even forced to acknowledge that niche subculture and most of the AI related shit i see is people in my everyday life who were already quasi-literate and undiscerning, not necessarily dumb, taking generative text at 100% face value. does not even occur to them to question its output or how it functions. the top google results are now by default an AI generated summary.
this does not become a good thing just because you have shadenfreude towards furries or whatever
>>2427030No, it comes from understanding the social role of the artisan class.
The category of "real art", or this notion that an image is only art if it has embedded within it the "creative spark" of the artist, is nothing but a metaphysical justification to a property claim on intellectual output. No different than metaphysical justifications for a divine right of property over MOP or land, etc.
The production of art is already socialized, it's impossible to count all the value inputs that go into the final artistic product, but only the "artist" gets to lay claim on the output as property, and sell it as a commodity. It was always socialized, folk art like oral epics and national ornaments and fairy tales, for example, is a product of many generations' work across time and space.
Really, the category of "artist" is a product of aristocrats and bourgies sending their failsons who can't take over the family business to art schools to save face. To justify the artist's property claim on art, they insist on a mystical, inherent relation between artist and art, conceiving of art as the sole product of the individual, rather than the collective output of society. It's the artist "expressing themselves", or "revealing a Truth about the world", "demonstrating their skill", etc. This is the very origins of the notion of Art with the capital A.
The types of art that do not allow for the sole intellectual proprietorship of an artisan are then excluded from the category of "real art": if a petite bourgeois artisan can't make a living off of it, it is no longer Art.
In a few years they will come out with a DAW for imagegen, with many knobs and sliders and buttons, which will become unusable to normies, and require training to utilize professionally, and suddenly the sanctity of Skill and Real Art will be restored, just like it was for electronic music and digital painting, etc.
>>2427041Totalitarianism doesn't make much sense as a distinct category when all societies try to control and mold it's members.
>>2427071>In a few years they will come out with a DAW for imagegen, with many knobs and sliders and buttons, which will become unusable to normies, and require training to utilize professionally, and suddenly the sanctity of Skill and Real Art will be restored, just like it was for electronic music and digital painting, etc.Already this has been happening as people can craft their own image data sets and make pages of very specific prompts in order get their exact vision out of the AI. Something the average person does not have the education or time to do.
>>2416527I'm pretty sure most anons here support it here simply because they call twitter artists petty booj. I can't imagine why else they'd myopically support one of the most effective tools for subjugation capital has ever produced
>Well when capitalism ends-a) why do you think current AI models are what could potentially evolve into whatever a communist society would theoretically use? As it stands the only real reference point is Dengist China, and even then they're far more conservative on the issue than neoliberal Western states.
b) AI is already at this very moment being used to extend the lifespan of capitalism considerably. Le dead internet is still printing record profits and while the bubble does show some signs of popping, AI tools are primed and already priming the population for fascism when Capitalism does eventually collapse.
But keeping licking capitalist boots so you don't get called a reactionary on the ex chud hangout website I guess ✌️
>>2427071>The category of "real art", or this notion that an image is only art if it has embedded within it the "creative spark" of the artist, is nothing but a metaphysical justification to a property claim on intellectual output. No different than metaphysical justifications for a divine right of property over MOP or land, etc.bro thinks creativity started with intellectual property laws
>The production of art is already socializedyeah it's almost like it's being PRIVATIZED by a few trillion dollar tech companies
>>2427122Yeah, the notion that art production is leisure rather than labor is a product of intellectual property.
>art is being privatized from private artisans to private corporationsShit has turned into piss!!1111
But generally historically progressive, just like textile production turning from artisanship into an industry.
>>2427135the proletariat is unskilled fucktard
>stop being a loseryup its a middle classer as expected
>>2427140tell me right now, what is keeping you from getting more skilled at art.
any answer besides "i work at a slave labor camp that works me 14 hours a day" is invalid
>>2427166lack of capital
the fact that you think this is a gotcha is hilarious btw
>>2427170>i LITERALLY have no free time in the day outside of my 8 hr jobwhat are you doing all day
>>2427172no it's not
>>2427071i dont disagree with everything youre saying here but i think you are entirely wrong to conflate the concept of an artisan class with the cultural-aesthetic trends around the "spark of creativity" that makes art "authentic." a jeweler, a wheelwright, and a tailor were all members of historical artisan classes, and the cultural attributes you're describing are totally irrelevant to the role of these classes historically.
"independent artists" in contemporary industrial society are not artisans, they are either proletarian, bourgeois, or in a transitional position related towards the local tendencies of those classes, and make art & crafts usually as a personal pursuit and peripherally as supplementary income to their primary means of subsistence (anything from furry porn and custom gun builds to whiddling decorative walking sticks and sewing quilts). the absolute closest you will get to an artisan class is people who grind and grift their way into having an actual market for their crafts, which still takes the form of self-employment i.e. piece-wages, which is in no way outside of standard functioning capitalist class dynamics, no remnants of an artisan class needed to explain it.
yes these arts & crafts are already fully a social product as is all production, yes there is a very silly cultural association of aesthetic discernment with the percieved "authenticity" of a product that often appeals to the percieved independence and "inspiration" of its creation.
none of that means this is an example of a remnant artisan class, and doesnt even start to provide any justification for saying actually generative AI's current application is historically progressive specifically because its wiping away this alleged artisan remnant . and EVEN if i granted all of this and agreed this particular instance was historically progressive, it would not mean that generative AI is being deployed on the whole in a historically progressive way, because the alleged artisan class youre referring to is a small minority compared with the massive number of people among who it functions primarily as an obfuscationist encouragement of idealism and alienation
>>2427181I have a desire to have a toothbrush.
If I have a need for a specific toothbrush, and there's a machine that produces a specific kind of toothbrush from a description, then great.
>>2427152>what is keeping you from getting more skilled at art. People can learn how to draw if they want but using AI and trying to get an artistic image from their head into reality is getting more skilled in art.
It's a tool just like DAW. People who use DAWs might not know how to read musical notation, play piano or drums but they can still create unique music.
>>2427196In the same capacity that I sometimes desire to have a walk in the park, or play with a ball, or plant a garden.
Maybe today i'll make a toothbrush on a lark, tomorrow I'll take a photo of a bird.
I won't demand that society let me have a business doing those things, though.
>>2427202>muh creativitywho gives a fuck about how creative you were being during the process? the only thing that matters is the output.
>>2427216I worked at a design studio and infantile fuckers like you were the bane of my existence. going out of spec and wasting time on dumb bullshit instead of matching the technical specifications. Straight out of art college or self taught, with dumb fantasies about being the next banksy
usually took about half a year to either break them in or fire them.
>>2427223Just as it will be under socialism.
Sorry, artisans have no future as a class.
>>2427237Idealism is thinking that the particular constraints and specifics of a medium (intermediary between idea and result) are sacred and valuable in themselves, and constitute "creativity".
There's a million art forms and mediums that were born of certain material conditions, and died with them. The specifics of their production lost to time. Yes, knowing how to treat a canvas so it doesn't rot, and apply paint in such a way that it dries without cracking, is tedium. It's just a tithe to material science and it's not creative. 90% of manual art production is tedium. Even if it's not tedium, the fact that it might be enjoyable is just a fortituous circumstance, not the whole point of the process. There's better ways to get off.
>>2427234Yeah there are current limitations with the technology but is that really different to having limitations with your own talent and skill? Not all auteur directors had unlimited budgets and could get everything they wanted either. Yet they can work within their limits and still produced art.
>>2427237>as if the process of making something has no bearing on the final product. Never said the process has no bearing. But it's still an expression of creativity and can be art.
>its a fundamentally idealist way of thinking,No, because you are using physical computers and electricity to produce it.
> the process is just busywork tedium.Some people find aspects of an art tedious but still like the overall project of creating it. Does that disqualify them from being "true" artists? Do they have to love every part 100% no exceptions?
>>2427237none of this disqualifies prooompting either.
you prooompt, see result, adjust prompt. more than anything, you editorialize: pick an image from a set of variants, like one might pick a shot from multiple photograph takes: the real creative aspect.
>>2427327>But what use is it to the average person to be able to generate images and videos that are almost indistinguishable from real life?It means a small group or a hobbyist can now conceivably create an animated feature film that used to require an entire studio and an industry, genius.
Just like the internet killed magazines, there no longer has to be an intermediary between creator and audience, and no cost to the physical production process.
Unique IPs: 44