I’m happy you took a writing class but why do I have to be your exam topic?
you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products.
I’ll be honest and say I debated even reading the rest of your comment because right off the bat you’ve just said some bullshit that anyone who even looks at my posts would know is false. I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.
However, in the spirit of good faith, I did read it and I must say I feel like you’re shadowboxing someone who isn’t me.
But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art.
I did not say this. I don’t know why you’re putting it here.
A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act.
This is what I said and where the misunderstanding seems to begin, because:
You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.
is the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.
I think you’re trying to argue with me as if I’m pro-AI and have made the usual pro-AI arguments when I am not and have not. AI in all of its iterations are to me what algorithms of the bygone era are: tools. You can use a hammer to crudely slam nails into a 2x4 but you’re not an artist until you build something more than the sum of its parts, whatever tools you use. I don’t use AI. I don’t pay for any AI services. I’ve followed the development of LLMs, stable diffusion, and adjacent technology. I have experimented with it and found it to not be useful in my usual workflow and I don’t see what else I could do with it that hasn’t been done a million times over. I don’t hate the hammer because it’s not immediately useful to me, I just don’t use it and won’t be upset if someone else does. If someone else makes something beautiful with the hammer then I will appreciate it as I do art made with any other tools.
The rest of your essay is more like a generic rant aimed at nobody in particular so I won’t dissect it. The above point applies.
I didn’t take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.
“I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.”
It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”. Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:
“the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.”
But then you are doing this strange double speak: “Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well” “AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.” So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.
If you really don’t use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don’t use? It’s because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?
I repeat the part you didn’t read from a small comment you call “essay”: Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.
We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.
what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism
because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.
You’re either deeply confused about what I said or you’re deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn’t.
You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”.
I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.
“because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.”
It is odd for you to say that that criticism for generative AI amounts to arguments of taste after openly admitting that you disregarded a good amount of the criticism I just wrote. You want a good faith discussion but you haven’t touched my questions:
Is it valid for people to criticize the use of a specific technology that affects their lives and their work?
I current applications of AI have a capitalistic tendencies then is it safe to say that it won’t exist in a post capitalist society?
Isn’t it true that art is available to anyone but all that Gen AI offers is centralization control and cooption of creative resources?
I’m happy you took a writing class but why do I have to be your exam topic?
I’ll be honest and say I debated even reading the rest of your comment because right off the bat you’ve just said some bullshit that anyone who even looks at my posts would know is false. I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.
However, in the spirit of good faith, I did read it and I must say I feel like you’re shadowboxing someone who isn’t me.
I did not say this. I don’t know why you’re putting it here.
This is what I said and where the misunderstanding seems to begin, because:
is the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.
I think you’re trying to argue with me as if I’m pro-AI and have made the usual pro-AI arguments when I am not and have not. AI in all of its iterations are to me what algorithms of the bygone era are: tools. You can use a hammer to crudely slam nails into a 2x4 but you’re not an artist until you build something more than the sum of its parts, whatever tools you use. I don’t use AI. I don’t pay for any AI services. I’ve followed the development of LLMs, stable diffusion, and adjacent technology. I have experimented with it and found it to not be useful in my usual workflow and I don’t see what else I could do with it that hasn’t been done a million times over. I don’t hate the hammer because it’s not immediately useful to me, I just don’t use it and won’t be upset if someone else does. If someone else makes something beautiful with the hammer then I will appreciate it as I do art made with any other tools.
The rest of your essay is more like a generic rant aimed at nobody in particular so I won’t dissect it. The above point applies.
I didn’t take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.
“I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.”
It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”. Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:
“the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.”
But then you are doing this strange double speak: “Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well” “AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.” So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.
If you really don’t use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don’t use? It’s because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?
I repeat the part you didn’t read from a small comment you call “essay”: Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.
We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.
because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.
You’re either deeply confused about what I said or you’re deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn’t.
I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.
“because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.”
It is odd for you to say that that criticism for generative AI amounts to arguments of taste after openly admitting that you disregarded a good amount of the criticism I just wrote. You want a good faith discussion but you haven’t touched my questions:
Is it valid for people to criticize the use of a specific technology that affects their lives and their work?
I current applications of AI have a capitalistic tendencies then is it safe to say that it won’t exist in a post capitalist society?
Isn’t it true that art is available to anyone but all that Gen AI offers is centralization control and cooption of creative resources?