https://archive.ph/tR7s6

Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”

“But I still want to get paid for it.”

  • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    I get that socialists will naturally be sympathetic to artists who often are not well compensated for their labor. However I think it’s also important that we understand that in order to make a living, independent artists rely heavily on intellectual property law. As such, they tend to want to categorize all AI art as unoriginal and derivative of existing works.

    Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate. In doing so it obfuscates the process by which the state creates and enforces a market for intellectual property. Therefore, I don’t think it’s particularly useful argument for socialists to make.

    That’s not to say “AI” companies aren’t exploiting the work of unpaid artists. That is definitely still true. We just need to be advocating for solutions that go beyond what capitalist markets can offer.

    • Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think it is a particularly ineffable quality though? It’s art because another human did it, and it really doesn’t have to be much deeper than that. That said, I do agree that intellectual property is ultimately blind alley. What most people don’t understand is that IP laws are only enforceable in the name of capital.

      • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I think I disagree with the idea that art is art because a human created it. I think art is art because it provides a particular kind of experience to us as humans. Whether or not a human made the art by hand, with a machine, or if it was simply an item someone found in nature it’s all still art. Even curating art is art.

        That said AI art is still a product of human creativity. It’s abstracted by a few layers of technology sure and most of the people that build or use the models don’t know what good art is. However bad art is still art. People get drunk at paint nights and create shitty imitations of famous paintings but it’s still art as reticent as I am to admit it.

        • Andrzej3K [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          For sure a person can curate AI art, and maybe even communicate something about the human experience with it. But, compared to a traditional painting, where every brush stroke tells the story of its creation, there’s just so much less bandwidth for that sort of expression. And in this case it would be the statement itself that is the art, not the ‘painting’.

    • yoink [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate.

      every single time the AI argument comes down to this. “oh you just don’t trust AI cos youre a rube who believes in a soul” no motherfucker I’m just not some fucking anti-intellectual who has decided, apropros of NO research into neuroscience, that I know how the brain works and it MUST be analogous to something algorithm based machines can understand

      you genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about, and you have to take so many intellectual shortcuts to derive your position that you are not worth taking seriously

        • yoink [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          exist in part to belittle actual artists for the sake of boosting the treat printers (or the treat printer prompters) to artist status

          that’s what’s so insane to me. for the longest time, STEM folk were all about ‘artists aren’t worth respecting’ ‘oh arts degree? just put the fries in the bag lmao’

          then suddenly AI art comes about and then it’s ‘look at my art! AI makes better art than anyone and it’s imperative we dump everything into it! you must respect my AI art! you must treat me like an artiste’

          and now that it’s clear it’s a grift, it’s ‘art is dead, we will never beat AI, artists are back to not worth respecting’

          once again, tourists visiting every creative medium they can to try and find fresh rubes for their machine

        • yoink [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          here?

          Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate.

          unless my lying eyes deceive me

          • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            When I say replicate I mean replicate an output. I.e. AI can be used to create images that are unique but categorically indistinguishable from various types of digital images that we would classify as art. I did not mean to imply that the AI models which currently exist can replicate processes that occur in the human mind.

            I understand why there might be some confusion and I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I genuinely dislike calling these models “neural nets” or “AI” because that implies they function as a human mind would. Anyone who understands the basics of both should know that’s not at all true.

    • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      You know all those people on this site and others, begging for money to survive the next month because of various reasons? I think they really put too much stock into the capitalist concept of money and should stop giving so much stock to something that’s bad.

      Is this really your take? That people within capitalism have to not use what little scraps of recourse they are given to have some sort of moral high ground? Really? Fuck you. People need money to live in the current shitty times and if there is a way to get money, they need to engage with it, because the alternative is that they starve and die. This really shouldn’t be hard to understand. Artists rely on a shitty system to make their money because it’s the only path available to the within the current shitty system. The legal system also sucks and yet it is the only recourse for people who get fucked over by corporations. Should they also stop trying to get some manner of justice because the system sucks? I guess we should all lie down and die, because the system sucks.

      SO yea, what the fuck are you talking about with solutions that go beyond the capitalist markets? How about we DESTROY these immoral, terrible markets and get us a good system of government?

      • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        What are you even talking about? This is the least charitable and most absurd interpretation of what I said.

        • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh no am I being uncharitable to someone okay with fucking over normal people because of a technicality? Sorry not sorry.

            • NuraShiny [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Because the vast majority artists are normal people and you are telling them to eat dirt because copyright law sucks?

              • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’m not telling them to eat dirt. I get there are people out there who just tell artists shit like “Artists just have to learn the new AI tools and if you don’t that’s on them.” We can agree those people suck. I am not one of them.

                I agree that AI just mimics the patterns found in existing works of art. I agree that companies making money off these AI models are in a round about way exploiting the labor of artists who often struggle to make a living. I agree artists should engage in political activity to the degree that they can to fight for what they deserve.

                That said, I am arguing that relying on copyright law and capitalist concepts of private property are not the avenue for artists to get what they deserve. That doesn’t mean I think artists should just accept the status quo. It also doesn’t mean I fault anyone, especially artists, if they disagree.

    • frauddogg [null/void, undecided]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Stop talking and lay down in the spike pit for defense of the theftboxes please and thank you

      Either that or surrender your hands right behind that nubby bit that pokes out at the wrist to the nearest artist you know