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
The so-called defenses of “AI art” in this thread seem to have been mostly about generative AI as a whole, so text is included under that umbrella, as far as I’m concerned. Also, for all the annoying (in my view) trend of calling AI pictures “AI art”, writing is often considered an artform too, so…
Anyway, I don’t really have time to get into a long thing right now (or at least, my version of long), but the point of my comment was “here’s something that is actually happening with a real person who uses AI” instead of projections of motives onto people that ignore the content of what has been said so far in this thread. Generative AI is one area where I can confidently say I am probably way more familiar with it than most people and this implication of “clouded views” is a conversation-ender kind of comment, not something that clarifies anything.
I posted this comment in a pretty snide way, that’s for sure. but I think it does sum up a lot of my views of AI art well. A lot of defenders of it aren’t looking for genuine use cases, they’re just demanding unlimited access to the treat machine, and that’s sad to see in a space like this.
If you’ve read my other comments on AI pictures specifically and would like to discuss what I have said in them, then sure, but if I’m coming across as defensive, it’s because of the sheer amount of people here who have presupposed what anti-AI picture people believe, if people are going to be talking past me, I’m going to be making snide comments about them. I do think a lot of people are becoming addicted to the treat generators, and as such, will rationalise away their addiction and start accusations against people who “want to take their treats away.” without really examining whether this, as it currently exists, is actually good for society. A lot of them seem to be presuppose a kind of “platonic ideal” of AI art that just brings joy to people, rather than the capitalist treat machine it is currently being used for.
(Fair warning, I have time to do a long thing now… bear me, or don’t, up to you.)
I’d have to go find those other comments of yours, but for the moment, I will say, I kind of get it. I do remember seeing at least one comment that was sniping at anti-AI views and being uncharitable about it, and I kinda tried to just skate past that aspect of it and focus on my own read of the situation, but I probably should have addressed it because it was a kind of provocation in its own way.
But yeah, I can get defensive on this subject myself because of how often anything nuanced gets thrown out. Personally, I’ve put a lot of thought into what way and how I use generative AI and for what reasons, and one of my limits is I don’t share AI-generated images beyond a very limited outlet (I’m not sharing them on the wider internet, on websites where artists share things). Another is that I don’t use AI-generated text in things I would publish and only use it for my own development, whether that’s development as a writer or like a chatbot to talk about things, etc.
Can they be “treat generators” in a way? Yeah, I guess that’s one facet of them. But so is high speed internet in general. It’s already been the case before generative AI kicked into high gear that people can find novel stimuli online at a rate they can’t possibly “use up” all of or run out of fully because of the rate at which new stuff is being produced. The main difference in that regard is generative AI is more customizable and personal. But point is, it’s not as though it’s the only source of “easy treats”. Probably the most apt comparison to it in that way is high speed internet itself along with the endless churn of “new content”.
Furthermore, part of the reason I chose the example I did of use in my previous post is that while, yes, there are people who use generative AI for porn, or “smut” as some would call it in the case of text generation, the way you posed your post, there was essentially no way to respond to it directly without walking into a setup that makes the responder look bad. If the person says no, I don’t use it for that, you could just say, “Well I meant the people who do and I’m sure some do.” And if the person says yes, I do use it for that, you can say, “Hah, got you! That is what your position boils down to and now I’m going to shame you for use of pornography.” It also carries an implication that that one specific use would cloud someone’s judgment and other uses wouldn’t, which makes it sound like a judgment specifically about pornography that has nothing to do with AI, which is a whole other can of worms topic in itself and especially becomes a can of worms when we’re talking about “porn” that involves no real people vs. when it does (the 2nd one being where the most intense and justifiable opposition to porn usually is).
Phew. Anyway, I just wish people on either end of it would do less sniping and more investigating. They don’t have to change their views drastically as a result. Just actually working out what is going on instead of doing rude guesses would go a long way. Or at the very least, when making estimations, doing it from a standpoint of assuming relatively charitable motives instead of presenting people in a negative light.
You’re absolutely right that this has just largely devolved into people snapping past each other and not really listening to each other. I made my comment above because it felt like this place was behaving more like reddit or twitter than Lemmygrad, over AI of all things, and as AI is a personal threat to my livelihood, I probably took that a lot more personally than I needed to. I felt like I was being chased off the platform by an imagined army of treat obsessed AI techbros. I assumed that Lemmygrad in general held a very position on AI, more similar to my own, and it was quite a shock. But it’s not helpful to just insult people for disagreeing with me.
While I was “snapping back” in retaliation, I wasn’t really contributing anything substance with this and certainly wasn’t contributing productively. It was more of a parting shot than anything else, just frustrated with what I saw as people basically ignoring the potential problems of this technology in favour of being ok with consuming more capitalist owned treats. But I would rather have a proper discussion of the technology and its implications than just catty back and forth insults. I do think this technology is going to do more harm than good to society overall, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have benefits.
Like any tool, it depends on how it is used. I just felt a lot of people were acting as if this was being implemented in a utopian socialist society, where discussion of how the capitalist class will use this to manipulate and control the people was being ignored. It really didn’t help that most of the pro-AI picture arguments involved some comment about how IP law is bad. Like yeah, it is, but we live in a capitalist system that uses it, and big corporations getting to ignore IP law isn’t a good thing, it already exists for their benefit against the people, so people basically just using a strawman argument that people only care about their art “IP” or whatever felt very disingenuous, very “twitter debate bro” even. And if you’ve seen how I act when a twitter debate bro wanders in here, I think it’s pretty easy to see why I made the comment above, when I felt like I was being surrounded by them. I got too defensive, and was ultimately stifling discussion because I didn’t like how I felt the discussion was being stifled.
Obviously this problem didn’t start with AI, and the internet algorithms before this basically created the conditions for AI to be used in the way it is largely used by people, a treat machine instead of a purpose built tool, as people are already used to instant gratification. Which I suppose overall is what I’m really upset about. But this isn’t new, as you said, the internet and even television before it have basically trained people to always want new “treats” to consume, instead of more productive and self-actualising hobbies and pastimes.
Since you used a personal example, I might use one too. A friend of mine really, really struggled in his 20s. He had some productive hobbies as a teen, but stopped doing them once he became an adult. He would always end up going down the “path of least resistance” with regards to his free time, which usually involved just watching TV, playing video games, and drinking. His depression became far worse as a result. He felt like he had nothing to live for, because quite frankly, he didn’t. It wasn’t just the depression talking, he genuinely had nothing of substance to look forward too in his life. It was just an endless cycle of work and consumption. It wasn’t until he started getting back into his old physical hobbies, where he was actually doing something, improving a skill, that he started to improve.
Now this isn’t a rant against consumer entertainment, so much as it is me trying to say that spending one’s time only ever consuming, instead of creating or improving, will completely wreck a person. I know the usual argument against this is “but I’m too tired to do anything else.” but people are tired because they get caught in this cycle where they do nothing but sell their labour and then spend their wages on consuming things. I know a lot hobbies under capitalism have very expensive barriers for entry, but you know what doesn’t? Art. All you need is paper, pencils and erasers.
So to bring this ramble back to the topic at hand, AI pictures are the consumer focused replacement for art itself, one of the few easy “just pick up the tools and do it” hobbies there is. Instead of someone doodling pictures for fun or to de-stress, they can type in a prompt instead. It turns what is an act that requires some effort, some self reflection, some struggle, into what is essentially a slot machine, you type in the prompt, hoping to get a “good enough” version of what you asked for. It looks “better” than anything an amateur could make themselves, so a lot of people would much rather do this than struggle and work hard at developing a skill, especially after a long, soul crushing day at work. But this leads to a negative spiral for people, in my opinion. I want to see people become the best version of themselves they can be, not necessarily through art, but through active improvement of themselves. And a quick easy shortcut like AI pictures means that they’ll never take that first step towards actually learning a skill.
TL;DR on my previous comments: I think the AI picture industry (and potentially the AI industry in general) is predatory and addicting, like gambling. I don’t think the technology itself is the problem, but I do think it is going to be used to further social control of the masses and destroy what little sense of self and community people have left under capitalism. I do think it has major potential to be incredibly addictive, to go back to my snide comment, very much like how the porn industry can be addictive. I’ve likened it to a treat generator a lot, and in many ways, it functions like a skinner box, it doesn’t give you exactly what you want every time, you have to keep pushing the button over and over until it does. Just like a slot machine. the way these programs work is built to cause and exacerbate addiction. Right now a lot of these AI picture programs are free, or have “small” fees, but that’s how literally every business starts, they charge as little as possible to undercut the competition, then once they get a monopoly or close enough, they jack up the prices. I’ve felt like a lot of the AI art defenders in this thread have completely ignored this aspect of it, which I think is the one we as socialists, should be most concerned about. Not that the technology itself is inherently bad, but how it will be used under capitalism to control and manipulate people.