this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
204 points (92.9% liked)
Communism
2050 readers
99 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes the very same argument we heard when CGI, cameras, photography was invented. Probably also paper, canvas and clay tablets.
Also the meme also adress this, if it will go into open source and be available to masses, it will led to the proletarianisation of art, something that should not be overlooked as art was always gated by time so we historically see it being domain of owner classes not having to work for a living like priesthood, aristocracy and bourgeoisie.
Generative AI is something inherently different. It's a bias multiplication machine. Have you ever visited CivitAI?
Yes, the application is similar. GUIs like ComfyUI are sophisticated and grant a good deal of control and creative freedom, much like Photoshop, DAWs or Blender.
All these technologies you mentioned have one thing in common they do not have in common with generative AI though: you could use them to model after the real world. Photorealism (as in: an exact representation of something existing in the non-digital realm) is achievable with all of those. It is not possible to achieve it with generative AI. AI only has its own "space" where it snatches ideas from. Gen AI can never be a gateway to art by itself, but its also way too powerful to just be a new tool.
Also I don't get how open source gen AI will lead to the proletarianization of art. What people need to create art is education, pen and paper, health, and free time. Making those accessible to everyone is much easier than to make sure everybody who wants to do "art" gets their 1000$ GPU and tons of RAM.
If you think art only exists in the hands of the oligarchs you're woefully ignorant on the scope of what art is and art history.
Nice way to put words into my mouth, you should so some word art.
You literally said it was in the hands of the bourgeoisie in your last comment.
Yes, that was the case, and aristocracy and priesthood, until very recently when capitalism socialised means of production to the level of petty bourgeoise artists being able to live without patron (and note that most artists came from those three classes too, peasants and workers were way too busy working to learn art). But bourgeoisie not mean automatically "an oligarch". Ofc now there are also working artists but they mostly produce commercial slop and own nothing just like every other worker.
What a myopic view of artistic creation. You're ignoring all ancient art, anything from pre history, and only thinking of art as things that are sold, popular, or known. A kid's crayon drawing and a doodle in a notebook are also forms of art. Art isn't only digital either. Humans have a desire to create, and watering that down by saying kids can just tell a robot to draw for them is repugnant. It's the loss of a valuable skill and something intrinsically human.
And that's just the art side of ai, not even the problems with the environmental impact, misinformation, arguable theft related to it's creation, etc.