

I already made my points, but again, there is no other material context under which this this exists.
Does its existence materially hurt people who sell creative forms of their labor? Yes.
Was it designed for that purpose? Yes.
Does it uselessly harm our biosphere? It’s at least as bad as shitcoin, probably worse.
Is the slop spigot of synthetic inhuman garbage for mindless consumption worth the alienation of taking human creativity away from human beings, so the little fucking piggies can get exactly what they think they want (but not really)?
It is true. Those are the conditions and reason for the creation of AI artwork as it materially exists.
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.
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.
And outside capitalism, creative workers don’t have to sell their labor just to survive… Are we just doing bullshit utopianism now?
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.
Here I was thinking capitalism just began a week ago. I guess AI slop machines causing people material harm is cool then.
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.
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, 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.
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.