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.