Hey there, sometimes I see people say that AI art is stealing real artists’ work, but I also saw someone say that AI doesn’t steal anything, does anyone know for sure? Also here’s a twitter thread by Marxist twitter user ‘Professional hog groomer’ talking about AI art: https://x.com/bidetmarxman/status/1905354832774324356

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlM
    104·
    11 days ago

    AI is entirely designed to take from human beings the creative forms of labor that give us dignity, happiness, human connectivity and cultural development. That it exists at all cannot be separated from the capitalist forces that have created it.

    Except that’s not true at all. AI exists as open source and completely outside capitalism, it’s also developed in countries like China where it is being primarily applied to socially useful purposes.

    There is no better way to describe the creation of these generative models than unprecidented levels of industrial capitalist theft that circumvents all laws that were intended to prevent capitalist theft of creative work.

    Again, the problem is entirely with capitalism here. Outside capitalism I see no reason for things like copyrights and intellectual property which makes the whole argument moot.

    LLMs vacuum up all traces of human thought, communication, interaction, creativity to produce something that is distinctly non-human – an entity that has no rights; makes no demands; has no dignity; has no ethical capacity to refuse commands; and exists entirely to replace forms of labor which were only previously considered to be exclusively in the domain of human intelligence

    It’s a tool that humans use. Meanwhile, the theft arguments have nothing to do with the technology itself. You’re arguing that technology is being applied to oppress workers under capitalism, and nobody here disagrees with that. However, AI is not unique in this regard, the whole system is designed to exploit workers. 19th century capitalists didn’t have AI, and worker conditions were far worse than they are today.

    LLMs are extremely inefficient and require more training input than a human child to produce an equivalent amount of learning.

    That’s also false at this point. LLMs have become far more efficient in just a short time, and models that required data centers to run can now be run on laptops. The efficiency aspect has already improved by orders of magnitude, and it’s only going to continue improving going forward.

    These “AI” implementations are all biased in favor of the class interests which own and control them :surprised-pikachu:

    That’s really an argument for why this tech should be developed outside corps owned by oligarchs.

    The energy cost is immense.

    That’s hasn’t been true for a while now:

    This represents a potentially significant shift in AI deployment. While traditional AI infrastructure typically relies on multiple Nvidia GPUs consuming several kilowatts of power, the Mac Studio draws less than 200 watts during inference. This efficiency gap suggests the AI industry may need to rethink assumptions about infrastructure requirements for top-tier model performance.

    As I suggest in earlier points, there is the issue with generative “AI” not only lacking any moral foundation, but lacking any capacity for ethical judgement of given tasks.

    Again, it’s a tool, any moral foundation would have to come from the human using the tool.

    You appear to be conflating AI with capitalism, and it’s important to separate these things. I encourage you to look at how this tech is being applied in China today, to see the potential it has outside the capitalist system.

    I don’t think the “it’s personally fun/useful for me” holds up at all to a Marxist analysis of its cost to our class interests.

    The Marxist analysis isn’t that “it’s personally fun/useful for me”, it’s what this article outlines https://redsails.org/artisanal-intelligence/

    Finally, no matter how much you hate this tech, it’s not going away. It’s far more constructive to focus the discussion on how it will be developed going forward and who will control it.

    • USSR Enjoyer@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      48·
      11 days ago

      Except that’s not true at all

      It is true. Those are the conditions and reason for the creation of AI artwork as it materially exists.

      AI exists as open source and completely outside capitalism

      Specifically, generative “AI” art models, are created and funded by huge capital formations that exploit legal loopholes with fake universities, illicit botnets, and backroom deals with big tech to circumvent existing protections for artists. That’s the material reality of where this comes from. The models themselves are are a black market.

      it’s also developed in countries like China

      I stan the PRC and the CPC. But China is not a post-capitalist society. It’s in a stage of development that constrains capital, and that’s a big monster to wrestle with. China is a big place and has plenty of problems and bad actors, and it’s the CPC’s job to keep them in line as best they can. It’s a process. It’s not inherent that all things that presently exist in such a gigantic country are anti-capitalist by nature. Citing “it exists in China” is not an argument.

      Outside capitalism I see no reason for things like copyrights and intellectual property which makes the whole argument moot.

      And outside capitalism, creative workers don’t have to sell their labor just to survive… Are we just doing bullshit utopianism now?

      It’s a tool that humans use. Meanwhile, the theft arguments have nothing to do with the technology itself.

      This exists to replace creative labor. That ship has already sailed. That’s the reality you’re in now. There’s a distinction between a hammer and factory automation that relies on millions of workers to involuntarily train it in order to replace them.

      You’re arguing that technology is being applied to oppress workers under capitalism, and nobody here disagrees with that. However, AI is not unique in this regard, the whole system is designed to exploit workers. 19th century capitalists didn’t have AI, and worker conditions were far worse than they are today.

      Here I was thinking capitalism just began a week ago. I guess AI slop machines causing people material harm is cool then.

      That’s also false at this point. LLMs have become far more efficient in just a short time, and models that required data centers to run can now be run on laptops.

      Seems like you should understand the difference between running a model vs. training a model. And the cost of the infinite cycle of vacuuming up more new data and retraining that’s necessary for these things to significantly exist.

      That’s really an argument for why this tech should be developed outside corps owned by oligarchs.

      Okay, but that’s not how and why these things to exist in our present reality. If there were unicorns, I’d like to ride one.

      Again, it’s a tool, any moral foundation would have to come from the human using the tool.

      Again, for workers, there’s a difference between a tool and a body replacement. The language marketing generative AI as tools is just there to keep you docile.

      If this “tool” does replace work previously done by human beings (spoiler: it does), then the capacity for ethical objection to being given an unethical task is completely lost, vs. a human employee, who at least has a capacity to refuse, organize a walkout, or secretly blow the whistle. A human must at least be coerced to do something they find objectionable. Bosses are not alone in being responsible for delegating unethical tasks, those that perform those tasks share a disgrace, if not crime. Reducing the human moral complicity to an order of one is not a good thing.

      Finally, no matter how much you hate this tech, it’s not going away.

      It will go away when the earth becomes uninhabitable, which inches ever closer with every pile of worthless, inartistic slop the little piggies ask for. I guess people could reject this thing, but that would take some kind of revolution and who has time for that.

      Its not just that you’re constantly embracing generative AI, but you’re arguing against all of it’s critiques and ignoring the pain of those that are intentionally harmed in the real world.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlM
        62·
        11 days ago

        It is true. Those are the conditions and reason for the creation of AI artwork as it materially exists.

        Those are not the conditions for open source models which are developed outside corporate influence.

        Specifically, generative “AI” art models, are created and funded by huge capital formations that exploit legal loopholes with fake universities, illicit botnets, and backroom deals with big tech to circumvent existing protections for artists. That’s the material reality of where this comes from. The models themselves are are a black market.

        There is nothing unique here, capitalists already hold property rights on most creative work. If anything, open models are democratizing this wealth of art and making it available to regular people. It’s kind of weird to cheer own for copyrights and corporate ownership here.

        It’s not inherent that all things that presently exist in such a gigantic country are anti-capitalist by nature. Citing “it exists in China” is not an argument.

        What I actually cited is that there are plenty of concrete examples of AI being applied in socially useful ways in China. This is demonstrably true. China is using AI everywhere from industry, to robotics, to healthcare, to infrastructure management, and many other areas where it has clear positive social impact.

        And outside capitalism, creative workers don’t have to sell their labor just to survive… Are we just doing bullshit utopianism now?

        So at this point you’re arguing against automation in general, that’s a fundamentally reactionary and anti-Marxist position.

        This exists to replace creative labor. That ship has already sailed. That’s the reality you’re in now. There’s a distinction between a hammer and factory automation that relies on millions of workers to involuntarily train it in order to replace them.

        Yes, it’s a form of automation. It’s a way to develop productive forces. This is precisely what the Red Sails article on artisanal intelligence addresses.

        Here I was thinking capitalism just began a week ago. I guess AI slop machines causing people material harm is cool then.

        AI is a form of automation, and Marxists see automation as a tool for developing productive forces. You can apply this logic of yours to literally any piece of technology and claim that it’s taking jobs away by automating them.

        Seems like you should understand the difference between running a model vs. training a model. And the cost of the infinite cycle of vacuuming up more new data and retraining that’s necessary for these things to significantly exist.

        Training models is a one time endeavor, while running them is something that happens constantly. However, even in terms of training, the new approaches are far more efficient. DeepSeek managed to train their model at a cost of only 6 million, while OpenAI training cost hundreds of millions. Furthermore, once model is trained, it can be tuned and updated with methods like LoRA, so full expensive retraining is not required to extend their capabilities.

        Okay, but that’s not how and why these things to exist in our present reality. If there were unicorns, I’d like to ride one.

        So, you’re arguing that technological progress should just stop until capitalism is abolished or what exactly?

        Again, for workers, there’s a difference between a tool and a body replacement. The language marketing generative AI as tools is just there to keep you docile.

        It’s just automation, there’s no fundamental difference here. Are you going to argue that fully automated dark factories in China are also bad because they’re replacing human labor?

        A human must at least be coerced to do something they find objectionable. Bosses are not alone in being responsible for delegating unethical tasks, those that perform those tasks share a disgrace, if not crime. Reducing the human moral complicity to an order of one is not a good thing.

        We have plenty of evidence that humans will do heinous things voluntarily without any coercion being required. This is not a serious argument.

        It will go away when the earth becomes uninhabitable, which inches ever closer with every pile of worthless, inartistic slop the little piggies ask for. I guess people could reject this thing, but that would take some kind of revolution and who has time for that.

        This has absolutely nothing to do with AI. You’re once again projecting social problems of how society is organized onto technology.

        Its not just that you’re constantly embracing generative AI, but you’re arguing against all of it’s critiques and ignoring the pain of those that are intentionally harmed in the real world.

        I’m arguing against false narratives that divert attention of the root problems, and that aren’t constructive in nature.

        • USSR Enjoyer@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          21·
          8 days ago

          It’s kind of weird to cheer own for copyrights and corporate ownership here.

          I’m not “cheering for corporate ownership” here by any stretch of the imagination. The exact opposite, actually. But if you’re just going to rely on hypotheticals and bad faith, then I’m done wasting my time on anything you have to say.

          Little unsolicited advice: You’re way too online and it shows; and that’s never good for your mental health. Take some time off from being an epicbacon poster.