its reactionary to oppose AI art in favour of petit-bourgeois artisinal labour. embrace progress.
>>663769Where and when were artists wage-laborers?
Unless they work for corporate offices
>>663769most independent artists get by on commissions, or freelance work. this self-employment is petit-bourgeois. its artisinal labour because it is self-sufficient, or manual, rather than automatic, or social. saying that the category of art is nullified by its commodification is absurd, considering the elite markets for supposed "high art". where it concerns wage labour, thousands of digital artists may contribute to the CGI in a film, but the very form of this work is sustained by the film industry, which is a consumerist invention. if "art" is a cultural depository for "labour", where does duchamp figure? likewise, more effort doesnt mean greater results. a machine outcompetes man in all other areas; physically, cognitively - why not creatively? your accusation that AI is ineffective because it is primitive is neglectful of the real improvements we see in AI tools each year. no technology advances so quickly. finally, your concerns over AI helping to produce pornography is conservative hysteria. if an artist can draw cp themselves, whats the difference in prompting it? this is like blaming guns for people using guns irresponsibly. do you also want to ban violent videogames?
the issue is that you think art is dying, but its been "dead" for a very long time. thats what makes you reactionary; you chase after ghosts, like odysseus in the land of shades. let the dead die, and go forward into the land of the living.
>>663789Thanks for the post.
Most of the AI hysteria is mainly strawmen or stuff that happens to other mediums as well.
>>663797>thefti support the piracy of intellectual property
do you think illegally streaming a hollywood movie is unethical?
>>663798I kind of see your point but it just doesn‘t seem the same to me. Despite all the illegal streaming pretty much everyone does these film companies still make gigantic sums of money. Most self-employed artists however are poor and are still doing it because they love art. That people scrape their art and train their models with it does make a substantial impact to the people who have done the labor as opposed to these big movie companies.
>>663799It‘s still something a person worked for.
>>663802I don‘t think so because the artist doesn‘t employ and exploit anyone, so I don‘t think equating it to a small business is appropriate. It‘s rather comparable to a bunch of workers being scanned and then the data is used to train robots that put the worker out of work (as bizarre of an example that sounds like).
I also disagree with calling them petit-bourgeois like in earlier posts. There doesn’t seem to be a real difference between being employed and working for a wage or being self-employed which boils down to selling your labor to a specific person/company for a brief time.
>>663803Fine, I just think that‘s kind of shitty and I find no reason to support a process in which workers are put out of their livelihood like that. I‘m merely asking for it to be based on consent that the artist gave away their labor to train AI models. Perhaps they could get a cut from the profit made with those models.
>>663804You‘re not extracting surplus labor by using a commodity that was made unethically. But on a different note what did Marx say about intellectual property?
>>663808Pure appeal to emotion
>>663809Whether or not you choose to support it is irrelevant, it will happen regardless.
>>663811how is it appeal to emotion
i pointed out how you are rooting for the world to get worse just because you dislike artists personally (for whatever reason)
how is your ideology any different from magas who want to destroy the planet to own the libs
>>663809in grundrisse, marx described collective knowledge as a societal productive force. while ip laws were developed after his time it is reasonable to assume he would criticize the concept of intellectual property for privatizing this communal resource of knowledge
i would comment that it doesn't really matter if it's an aspiring pb or an accomplished porky that does the privatization
>>663813>rooting for the world to get worseI am not "rooting" for anything, AI simply exists objectively independent of how you feel about it.
>you dislike artists personallyI don't understand this strawman specifically, I haven't said anything about artists, other than asking if they are actually paid in wages. (They are overwhelmingly not.)
I actually draw as a hobby myself, and hate the "look" of AI generated images.>how is your ideology any different from magas who want to destroy the planet to own the libsHow is your ideology any different from magas who want to kill gays because they personally find gay sex icky?
>>663809>I don‘t think so because the artist doesn‘t employ and exploit anyone, so I don‘t think equating it to a small business is appropriate.they employ themselves. also, if youre receiving a fee for your labour, you are at least in your own business. what do you make of plumbers and other tradesmen?
>There doesn’t seem to be a real difference between being employed and working for a wage or being self-employedin the latter, you own your own means of production.
>>663821here, i've been slowly working through the chapters of this fuckoff tome to see if i can't learn anything new
chapter 85 might be useful to both of us
>>663808>degradation of cultureImagine being a "communist" and even using culture as a talking point, lol. Again, AI discourse reveals all the libs.
>>663769Lmao artisans were the OG petit-bourgeois you fucking retard.
>>663860nope. anon who i was talking to did reply.
however, since the level of discussion was too high, janny at
>>663847 came in to shit all over the place and increase pph at all costs
>>663864>not caring is cheering<dystopian form of controlWhy do middle classers always speak like this man. Get some actual problems in life, or better yet, a job.
>>663869Lmfao where's the lie? You realize most painters went out of commission when photography became a thing?
>>663864You.
Are.
Overreacting.
>>663864>the ruling classes inventthe ruling class don't invent anything. the workers create things through their labor power. Like most forms of technology "AI" (a vague and nebulous term covering far too many topics) is a double edged sword and its implications depending on what it is being used for.
>gas chambershideous comparison. we've been capable of filling a space with desired gas compound for much longer than the 1940s. The technology to do this was
used to do the holocaust, not invented
for that purpose. Your Air Conditioning operates largely on the same principle.
>>663890the quality of your posts is lower than that of a chatbot. respond to this:
here, respond to this, if you are capable
>if you compare AI produced stuff [from now] with AI produced stuff from 10 years ago it's vastly superior. The quality of AI art depends on the quality of the training data and the quality of the model training, and the quality obviously of the code in which the AI is written. At the end of the day it is the human labor behind the AI that determines whether the AI output is high quality or low quality, just like with real art. The only difference is the FORM of living labor used to make AI. But even then, the training data has to be human-made art, not AI-made art. If you feed AI-made art to AI as training data, you'll see a decrease in quality, so the constant capital, or "dead labor" (i.e. labor which took place in the past) which "feeds" the AI is itself human-made art. People call it a "plagiarism machine" but that buys too much into intellectual property which is a capitalist framing of the issue.This is my actual position on the issue, not "slop good"
>>663768You fuckers use "petit-bourgeois" so casually that it has lost all meaning.
Generative "AI" is a capitalist tool to steal the labor of others in order to make human workers obsolete and pump out endless slop. It's not "progress", it's the death of art and we should oppose it strongly.
>>663769fpbp
>>663843>AI art is just the cheap version of arti suppose you prefer expensive art
>>663901high and low culture is a classist construct. ive watched plenty of art films, and have preferred marvel movies in their place.
>>663903art is already dead
literally, what dignity are you trying to preserve? furry rule 34?
>>663918>look mom I posted it againOf course the stalinist would overlook class and class struggle and assume anyone can become a revolutionary through consciousness-raising.
>>663920>a group you know nothing aboutIt isn't the job of communists to defend traditions and culture, period.
>>663910you are upset because i have told you the truth. God is dead, and so is art.
>>663911elitist snob
>>663924>Read it and say why he is wrong.<assume anyone can become a revolutionary through consciousness-raisingMaybe reread my post and join the dots. Your position makes no sense without an already strong labor movement either.
>>663925Even your retarded hypothetical means jack shit, it's what already happens with graffiti on the street lmfao.
>>663955>theres no difference between AI or non-AI>gers triggered anywayi think we know what side youre on
>>663984if i make living from selling my own art, what would you call that?
>>664112>self-employed proledefine "prole"
here's my definition: a wage worker
do the self-employed receive a wage?
>>664112>Self-employed prole. Petite-porkies employ proles not just themselves.This is the type on nonsense people come up with when they try to make class more than just your relation to the means of production,
- No, the petit bourg don't hire people, they'd be full bourg if they did.
- No, artists aren't petit-bourg, because they have a C-M-C cylcle, not an M-C-M cycle.
- Learn to read theory, then be critical of said theory rather than treating it as gospel. Marx got certain things wrong on purpose to spot the pseuds that would recite it rather than doing the secret homework those bits entail.
>>664156>they try to make class more than just your relation to the means of production<artists aren't petit-bourg<here's some """marxist intellectual""" buzzwords to prove itLol
>>663892.
>>664170Petbourgs have an M-C-M cycle, though differ from the fullbourgs in that they don't yet employ proles, and are on average downwardly mobile.
Artisans aren't petbourg, and with how selling art works on the web it's really stretching the word artisan thin.
>>664154>OP is evoking vote with your wallet rhetoriclike what?
>>664162>schizo cope post to spiritually defend furry rule 34 monopolies from the clutches of the masses>>664175so what youre saying is that artists dont actually produce value - we can at least agree there
>>664181your claim is that artists operate by C-M-C and therefore circulate a fixed value, and so do not actually produce a greater value to existing materials. if they did, art would have a measurable value based in production costs wouldnt it? yet, one's labour expended does not count toward cost if that labour is independent, or artisinal. in a market, the art commodity therefore operates by supply/demand.
if i sell a painting for £100M, where has this value been produced by my artistic labour? it hasnt, since the art commodity doesnt produce value, it circulates it, like merchants capital. but if im wrong, tell me how.
>>664185>but if im wrong, tell me how.NTA but here you go:
>your claim is that artists operate by C-M-C and therefore circulate a fixed value<you don't know what C-M-C means>and so do not actually produce a greater value to existing materials>art would have a measurable value based in production costs wouldnt it?<you don't seem to have any concept of 'value' (in a Marxist or any sense)>yet, one's labour expended does not count toward cost if that labour is independent<?>in a market, the art commodity therefore operates by supply/demand.<this made me actually laugh>if i sell a painting for £100M, where has this value been produced by my artistic labour?<equating price and value. again: you have no concept of value, be it Marxists or otherwise>it hasnt, since the art commodity doesnt produce value<funnily, factually correct statement. yet, again: no concept of value whatsoever>it ['the art commodity'? the market'?] circulates it, like merchants capital>no idea what you want to say, except maybe that when you talk about 'Art', you talk exclusively about Porkies laundering money and speculating other anon is right, read a book
>>664199>C-M-Ccommodity-money-commodity: the circulation of a fixed value by a medium of exchange. for this reason, surplus cannot arise from circulation alone.
is this an incorrect statement?
>no concept of valuesocial labour, measured by SNLT.
>supply/demand made me laughwhy? do you know how markets operate?
>equating price and valueno, i am explicitly decoupling them by proving that the labour put into a painting could never have the value of £100M. thus, how do we explain its price?
>art produces valueokay, so how do we determine how much value is produced in the painting in picrel? whats the metric?
>>6642131: is self-employment petit-bourgeois?
2: is independent labour artisinal?
if yes to both, you make my point for me
>>664266>IP law is le good when my vibes tell me soBloody retarded.
Why do petit-bourgeois love speaking like this btw ("corpos"), subtly implying the poor small artisan is worth defending as a "communist".
>>664169You realize the proletariat are revolutionary because they don't have control over *any* means of production, thus disenfranchised from the proceeds of social labor, so have to sell
their capacity to work as a commodity to not starve and die. You're describing fucking artisans and presenting them as proletarians when they've been the go-to example of petit-bourgeoisie since capitalism has been a thing.
>>664270>Le le vibesAnon your position directly supports the actions and agenda of capitalists, there is nothing vibes based about it. I oppose the actions of capitalists, therefore I oppose neolib technology that will further enrich them at the cost of workers that produce the hardware it's built on. It's quite literally that simple.
>Saying "corpos" is petit bourgeoisReading comprehension, anon.
>>664307yet its the petit-bourgs who are most opposed to AI
what exactly is wrong with AI to you?
>>664309It makes the feel vewy sad for the poor twitter
artists :''(
>>664309A small faction of twitter users and artists do not represent the petit bourgeois, anon. The vast, VAST majority of them support AI in the real world. Perhaps you're disconnected from them, but it's (generally) not proles that can afford the high end machines required to use AI locally, or the costs of using online services.
I oppose AI because proles cannot even use what they provided. At least a capitalist stealing from car manufacturers has the """decency""" to sell their cars back to them. The people in sweatshops making high end computer parts and working in electrical plants will never be able to afford that which they helped (in some small part) build. It's not the only technology where this is the case of superior alienation, but any technology that falls into this camp is an automatic no from me.
>>664330To them the art is irrelevant, they simply support AI art to "own the libs"
(The libs also love AI art, but that's besides the point)
Here's a piece of AI art that resonates. It's cool because of the timing—the album was released right at the cusp of AI coming into the foray. It's cool because of the artifacting and the low quality of the images. It's cool because it complements the music. It's cool because there's a sense of intentionality in the curation of the images. On their own, the images don’t really have any context or meaning, or cohesion. But when you take that and combine it with the timing of the album release—early 2022, just as the 2020s are getting underway, AI starting to emerge, hitting hard—the music is intense, electronic, danceable, full of samples pulled from the last two decades of tech-related media. You can hear fragments from Windows commercials. They’re subtle—just enough to trigger a sense of nostalgia or recognition, a kind of hauntological echo—but they don’t stand out sharply or overtly. Then there's the last song "Jack", which leans heavy into sexual techno, with lyrics that blur the line between human and machine, merging voice with EDM. It all ties back into the AI art. This is the only example of AI-generated art I’ve found compelling, and it continues to age well—precisely because of the limitations of DALL·E 2 compared to more advanced systems. The artifacting, the low resolution, the weird visual modulation—they become part of the art itself. But even still, the AI art is only complementing the music, which is why you're listening to the album and the music was made by a person.
There was another piece of AI art that struck me, though I don’t remember the artist—this was maybe two years ago. They generated images of world monuments—the Eiffel Tower, the Roman Colosseum, the Pyramids of Giza—each one wrapped in plastic tarps, plastic protective sheeting. It stuck with me because it would’ve been hard to pull off convincingly in Photoshop, but more than that, it had weight. The message was clear: these monuments to human civilization won’t outlast plastic. That’s the punch, and you sit with it, let it settle. That’s rare.
I’ll admit there might be a place for AI as an artistic tool. I’m not inherently opposed to it. I value artistic expression over intellectual property. I don’t believe in IP—fuck intellectual property. We’re communists; private property is the thing we’re supposed to be abolishing. But in reality, very few artists engage with AI because it’s so loaded—stained with stigma, tied up with right-wing, fascist-adjacent culture war garbage.
>>664324>proles cant afford AImost AI tools for the public are free since they want as much information as possible
>i oppose AI because its too expensivegive some examples
>>664330>modern art galleries are glorioussure. definitely not just sombre ceremonies, like a funeral rite.
>>664344>AI is implicitly fascisthow, exactly? you live in a dream world.
>>664297>are you a luddite, yall posting in a worthless radlib thread where not a single person has said the words "political economy" but they all randomly use a slur that is taken out of its revolutionary context, embarrassing, mods please ban everyone in this thread
THIS MACHINE KILLS podcast
https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/x5rij-df19d/This-Machine-Kills-Podcastwho wrote the book "The Mechanic and the Luddite
A Ruthless Criticism of Technology and Capitalism"
>Our society is constantly made to serve the needs of two systems: technology and capitalism. Neither exists outside humans, but both are treated as above and beyond us. The Mechanic and the Luddite offers the critical tools needed to deconstruct these systems—how they work, whom they work for, and what work they do in our lives. With signature style and energy, Jathan Sadowski presents a provocative one-stop shop for understanding the political economy of technology and capitalism. >>664369i used whisper to transcribe episode 403 (nice accessibility, dipshit) and the script itself looks like it has every indication of being at least assisted by ai, and if i were to be more specific, by claude
so, nah, material interests maintained
>>664345Generally speaking, art AI tools cost money. Basic text generation is """free"" if you ignore petit bourgeois dominance of that usage for things like ad copy and cheating on philosophy papers, powered again by proles whose product is sold by those ad men who took philosophy classes many proles cannot afford.
But we're not speaking of text models anyway. Art AI costs money. Some services offer a monthly allowance for free generation as a marketing schtick, but it's just that, and should not be taken as a sign of anything else. If you want to run those same models locally, you need at LEAST a mid range machine, if not higher. Like $1.5k absolute minimum for a machine that can realistically run most models. Guess who has that kind of pocket money? Tech workers, small business owners, landlords, children of rich parents, etc etc. I wonder if there's a term we could use to refer to that group of people!!!
>>664185>your claim is that artists operate by C-M-C and therefore circulate a fixed value, and so do not actually produce a greater value to existing materials.Labor adds the value, is the primary source of value even, especially with digital stuff, and moreso those artists you see drawing with the public library computers because they can't afford their own.
>if they did, art would have a measurable value based in production costs wouldnt it? Yes, including things like rent, food, medical bills, if they're smart about it: website hosting costs, etc… so costs generally scale by labor hours.
>if i sell a painting for £100MSelf employed artists are not getting big bucks the way museum artists do, because another artist able to charge a certain amount for the labor hours to make a simalarly skillful peice caps that, meanwhile museums have money laundering stuff going on so they piss huge numbers out to their buddies for taping a banana to the wall.
That said, your arguement still stands fair, in that you can charge more than the necessary upkeep somewhat. I'll add this to my notebook and hit the books some more.
>>664609you can pseudointellectualize anything to mean anything if you try hard enough
>>664614>I would love to see you try to analyze this image as an art critique.this is so fucking pathetic dude. i dont even like ai slop but imagine unironically saying this LMFAO
>>664614Youre being pretentious
Nobody is saying AI art is superior.
But people like you think AI is intentionally trying to replace art when it's clearly not.
It also uses pre existing data and requires training.
Also "art critique" is mainly people trying to find meaning of cliche stuff instead of looking at the real world
>>664615>artists are not petit-bourgeois because erm art critique or somethingwtf am i reading
not beating the
>>664164 allegations as usual
>>664614>>664636Most college student-brained posts I've seen here in a while and that's saying something on this pseud shithole.
At least I can say AI art simply looks like shit without having to resort to this small-penised spergout and masturbation of freelancing artisans.
It's very funny that motherfuckers will be like, why can't communists win? Why are we so bad at doing propaganda? Why are we so bad at reaching people? Why is the working class so difficult to radicalize? And then you'll have motherfuckers who are, without a lick of fucking irony, talking about how everyone who makes art is petite bourgeoisie, and that the working class has no interest in art because it's too intellectual. And then they'll bring up some nonsense about IP law, like anyone really understands what the fuck that means, and they're probably just mad at somebody they read on Twitter. Well, I can tell you one, we don't win anything. It's because of losers like that. Simple as.
Hey, you might have an easier time reaching people if you have some artists in the party. Oh, well, they're not allowed to join. They're petite bourgeoisie, and we don't need art anyway.
>>664376>Generally speaking, art AI tools cost moneynot for public users
you have the worst argument in this thread
>>664590there is no art anymore, only pornography.
>>664609>duchamp is a criticism against AI generationhow?
>>664380>labour adds the value to arthow much value?
>costs generally scale by labor hoursif i make an NFT (a piece of art in your estimation), and i set the price to £1000, is my artistic labour worth that much? if someone else sets their NFT to £500, is their labour worth half? you see how you are confusing market price and value (production costs)? the cost of a painting is its raw materials; thats why if you wanted to hang a mona lisa in your house, the copy would be very cheap. digital art by comparison has no real cost in reproduction since it can just be downloaded. thats why the only line of defence is copyright laws which privatise the internet.
>>664162That's a nice strawman theory, however, the points raised in this thread are based on looking at their relation to production, while your side seems to be too calcified and incompetent to concretely explain how someone a) living in poverty AND b) not exploiting anyone else AND c) owning means of production that will arguably turn into personal property after a socialist revolution (the artist's paint and brush set) is petit-bourgeois. Notice the conjunction of these attributes, by the way. I am speaking about all of those three attributes together. Nowhere am I stating that poverty alone makes a working class person. So, as far as I can tell a person with these relations to production wouldn't be invested in maintaining capitalism over socialism.
Now I am awaiting a proper counter argument and hopefully you can actually reason why they are petit-bourgeois instead of scholastically asserting they are because that's how a definition was once set.
>>664744>99% of AI art is slopthis statistic is no different from human art
you cant polish a turd, as they say
>>664704left is funny while right is just shit
AI has regressed
>>664716>the points raised in this thread are based on looking at their relation to productionExcept you retards are not doing that no matter how much you repeat your slogan without even understanding it.
Tapping at the sign again:
>>663892 >>664850>You cannot go online and generate 500 imageswhy would you want to? this is like saying "they kicked me out of an all-you-can-eat buffet because i stayed there for 12 hours!"
and is your contention that its unethical to charge for services which cost suppliers money? you can choose not to use AI if you dont want to, so what is the problem?
>>664851>hate AI because it threatens their tradeAnd this is the exact sort of generalization you cannot make. It is both untrue and irrelevant to my argument as a whole.
>>664852Because that is what practical usage of AI requires ie the vast majority of its usage. When something like Ghiblification was trendy, sure, maybe most people are just running an image through it once or twice, but for anything more than novelty, very rarely are commercial/semi-professional users satisfied with the free allowance sites give. I will admit that looking at them now more seem to allow much more free generation than I remember, but again on lesser, older models.
>>664852I forgot to reply to the second half sorry.
My contention is that AI as it stands is exploitative of proles for the benefit of the (petit) bourgeois and that people here support it far to uncritically. It's not a very complex argument because it's not a very complex issue.
>>664861>tool is exploitative of prolesYou definitely know what you're talking about.
>people here support itCalling you an idiot doesn't mean I "support AI".
>>664864>You definitely know what you're talking about.I know :^)
>>664867It belongs to that class of goods (meaning either high end computer components or generation costs) that is produced but cannot be consumed by proles in any realistic manner. Supporting AI is beneficial to the petit bourgeois who are currently benefitting quite a lot from its usage,
>>664895You can apply this to any labor though. Build a building and no one buys it, it is also valueless. It is a composite of being wanted enough to purchase and
clamped at the lower bounds of the material needed to do the labor to make the thing. because on average you can't just ex nihilo find the energy to do shit no one wants.
This is why artists trend toward making things that people would buy, just as an architect trends toward making buildings that are up to code and comfortable to be in.
>>664925>You can apply this to any labor though. Build a building and no one buys it, it is also valuelessyes, precisely
>This is why artists trend toward making things that people would buynot in most cases. dont most artists (such as musicians) make their stuff public domain, or at least, publicly available? most artists are bad businessmen, which is why they starve. good businessmen privatise access to their work.
>>665011>what is petit-bourgeois about art?its petit-bourgeois if you make a living from selling commodities created by your own labour. the category of art is not itself petit-bourgeois however.
>>663768AI is not progress, it is stagnation.
Yes, AI is now able to produce artwork that we haven a proven understanding and appreciation for.
The problem is AI halts progress. For everything.
Why learn a new thing when you can ask an AI?
Why develop a new skill when you can ask AI to do it?
This then leads to more problems.
How can you understand something truly if you never store the information in your own brain?
How can you study something further if you never learn anything yourself?
How can you find new ways to do things if you never learn the things in the first place?
How can we progress society and art further if we rely on tools of stagnation that are programmed to do things the way they've been done in the past with no advancements?
AI is not progress, it is a finish line.
We need to reject AI not because we can do better. We should not cross the finish line early because if we do then we will never go further.
AI robs us of our most human qualities, and those human qualities are the ones that both bring us joy and push us forward.
I don't want want humans to stagnate, and thus I do not want AI.
>>665393>AI robs us of our most human qualitiesNothing says material analysis like humanism.
I'm convinced any lib that needs to label themselves as either pro- or anti-AI is a fucking idiot with too much spare time.
>>665393I would argue that not only are you correct, but even search engines have a similar problem. See the many software devs that get by copying solutions from stack overflow, or people that tell you to "google it" when you ask a question.
People thought search engines were progress when it was introduced, but now the web has been moulded by the presupposition that search engines are avilable, meaning things that should have been linked went unlinked, venues where people post their works have been flooded with content was made with the intent of search engine optimization foremost before actually giving anything to the viewer, and things are posted and not linked to because it was assumed the search engine was enough. Now that search engines are proving to be an impractical solution to web indexing, we're in an archivists hell right now.
We're starting to see people not even try to find links to things and just trust the AI.
>>665691No, nor is that the position I'm conveying, nor can you get away with pretending that it was.
These two technologies, in how they work specifically, have had adverse effects on archival efforts: search engines in making people not manually index things while being an unsustainable and lackluster alternative to manual indexing, and AI seeming to make people forgo the persuit of existing information entirely. Understanding both of these as true at scale is the key to using them in a way that won't harm you in the long run as an individual.
If you worked on your reading comprehension and stopped funneling all incoming stimulus into the closest approximate boilerplate debate talking point you would have an easier time understanding the world.
No technology ever has "retarded humanity," that's not what cognitive offloading does, nor was I even talking about cognitive offloading.
Unique IPs: 69