The image itself is generated, rather than artisinally created
The first 2 are non-points to begin with, and the latter is an incomplete point. Again, there is absolutely no reason why this image needs to be artisinally created. Had OP used wordart and grabbed a stock image online for the background, it would have had the same amount of human input but no AI, yet you wouldn’t be calling it into question.
Nobody present is trying to tell you that AI can replace artists making art. You’re making the same mistakes the Luddites did in blaming machinery for the ills of capitalism, rather than capitalism itself. The same argument was had when digital art became mainstream over hand-drawn art, and when cameras came into being. Neither digital art nor cameras have replaced traditional art, nor can they, but that doesn’t mean digital art and cameras don’t have legitimate use cases.
AI has limitations that AI fanatics lie about. AI also has use-cases that people try their hardest to deny. Marxism helps us understand that AI can never replace traditonal art, but can absolutely be used for things like agitprop or stock images.
Requiring that communists spend hours on artisinally producing what is ultimately a disposable image meant to agitate and spark conversation just for you to acknowledge the message is wrong. From a human perspective, requiring this artisinal agitprop in order to acknowledge the point being drivin is deeply anti-human and instead individualist.
My point is that technology that eliminates labor is useful, and correctly analyzing where it’s useful and where it isn’t is important. It is better to save time where we can, such is the purpose of technology that amplifies what labor creates.
Any leftist of any sort should be dedicated to improving technology and production so that we can fulfill the needs of as many people as possible with as little labor necessary. AI can’t replace art, but it can certainly help in cases like this, small disposable agitprop memes for sparking discussion (like we are having now).
This is why it’s important to have a dialectical materialist outlook and not an idealist one. Metaphysics isn’t helpful.
What is the actual difference in output in the use-case here? What changes about the message if this meme was artisinally created, especially if you couldn’t tell? This is why it’s important to discard idealism and to embrace materialism, idealism adds confusing baggage that clouds our judgement.
Further, it is working. Every other top-level comment is a discussion of the content of the post, not the fact that it was generated.
The difference is whether we’re engaging with one another collectively or being engaged by a machine in isolation. If we couldn’t tell the difference we would be “cooked” and it would be “so over” as the kids say. This is why it’s important to care about the human element, freebasing materialism has apparently caused you to dismiss your fellow man as confusing baggage
Further, this (thankfully) doesn’t seem very well-recieved, I would say in large part because it is thoughtless, souless, trite, mechanized slop. It’s making a room full of countercultural system-smashers who would otherwise agree with at least the general sentiment stop and think that you suck too
As I said, OP could have grabbed a stock image and wordart and made the exact same image. Is it still intrinsically bad? We interact with machines and use tools all the time to shortcut processes that used to be artisinal. Taking photos of people instead of drawing them by hand did not erase the desire for portraits, but it added the ability to shortcut photography for times where applicable.
As for where you’re getting the idea that OP’s image isn’t well-recieved from, I have no idea. Your top comment is at time of writing 50% upvoted and 50% downvoted, and everyone else is talking about the content of the image. Saying we are “cooked and so over” without further elaboration isn’t a point either.
I’m not dismissing my fellow man, especially because I am fighting for the right of tool usage that alleviates artisinal labor from areas it doesn’t need to be.
People like expressing themselves, to know and be known is kinda what life is all about, and I have no idea how to meaningfully engage with someone who sees that opportunity as a burden to be alleviated. Hope you find both joy and peace today man
I explicitly said, over and over again, that AI can never take the place of art. OP clearly did not like the idea of hand-drawing agitprop, and so used a tool to shortcut to the final product. I don’t see art as a burden to be alleviated, and made the case that AI can exist alongside art without replacing it, just as photography didn’t replace hand-drawn portraits.
If you’re going to deliberately ignore what others are saying to you and instead make up brand new strawmen to attack, do you actually care about human expression or is this just a trend of emotional reaction?
Your only complaints are:
The first 2 are non-points to begin with, and the latter is an incomplete point. Again, there is absolutely no reason why this image needs to be artisinally created. Had OP used wordart and grabbed a stock image online for the background, it would have had the same amount of human input but no AI, yet you wouldn’t be calling it into question.
Nobody present is trying to tell you that AI can replace artists making art. You’re making the same mistakes the Luddites did in blaming machinery for the ills of capitalism, rather than capitalism itself. The same argument was had when digital art became mainstream over hand-drawn art, and when cameras came into being. Neither digital art nor cameras have replaced traditional art, nor can they, but that doesn’t mean digital art and cameras don’t have legitimate use cases.
AI has limitations that AI fanatics lie about. AI also has use-cases that people try their hardest to deny. Marxism helps us understand that AI can never replace traditonal art, but can absolutely be used for things like agitprop or stock images.
Requiring that communists spend hours on artisinally producing what is ultimately a disposable image meant to agitate and spark conversation just for you to acknowledge the message is wrong. From a human perspective, requiring this artisinal agitprop in order to acknowledge the point being drivin is deeply anti-human and instead individualist.
Your only point is:
No.
My point is that technology that eliminates labor is useful, and correctly analyzing where it’s useful and where it isn’t is important. It is better to save time where we can, such is the purpose of technology that amplifies what labor creates.
Any leftist of any sort should be dedicated to improving technology and production so that we can fulfill the needs of as many people as possible with as little labor necessary. AI can’t replace art, but it can certainly help in cases like this, small disposable agitprop memes for sparking discussion (like we are having now).
This is why it’s important to have a dialectical materialist outlook and not an idealist one. Metaphysics isn’t helpful.
The impactful thing here is your output, not that of the slop machine, and I don’t think it’s having the influence you’d hope for mr. downvote
What is the actual difference in output in the use-case here? What changes about the message if this meme was artisinally created, especially if you couldn’t tell? This is why it’s important to discard idealism and to embrace materialism, idealism adds confusing baggage that clouds our judgement.
Further, it is working. Every other top-level comment is a discussion of the content of the post, not the fact that it was generated.
The difference is whether we’re engaging with one another collectively or being engaged by a machine in isolation. If we couldn’t tell the difference we would be “cooked” and it would be “so over” as the kids say. This is why it’s important to care about the human element, freebasing materialism has apparently caused you to dismiss your fellow man as confusing baggage
Further, this (thankfully) doesn’t seem very well-recieved, I would say in large part because it is thoughtless, souless, trite, mechanized slop. It’s making a room full of countercultural system-smashers who would otherwise agree with at least the general sentiment stop and think that you suck too
As I said, OP could have grabbed a stock image and wordart and made the exact same image. Is it still intrinsically bad? We interact with machines and use tools all the time to shortcut processes that used to be artisinal. Taking photos of people instead of drawing them by hand did not erase the desire for portraits, but it added the ability to shortcut photography for times where applicable.
As for where you’re getting the idea that OP’s image isn’t well-recieved from, I have no idea. Your top comment is at time of writing 50% upvoted and 50% downvoted, and everyone else is talking about the content of the image. Saying we are “cooked and so over” without further elaboration isn’t a point either.
I’m not dismissing my fellow man, especially because I am fighting for the right of tool usage that alleviates artisinal labor from areas it doesn’t need to be.
People like expressing themselves, to know and be known is kinda what life is all about, and I have no idea how to meaningfully engage with someone who sees that opportunity as a burden to be alleviated. Hope you find both joy and peace today man
I explicitly said, over and over again, that AI can never take the place of art. OP clearly did not like the idea of hand-drawing agitprop, and so used a tool to shortcut to the final product. I don’t see art as a burden to be alleviated, and made the case that AI can exist alongside art without replacing it, just as photography didn’t replace hand-drawn portraits.
If you’re going to deliberately ignore what others are saying to you and instead make up brand new strawmen to attack, do you actually care about human expression or is this just a trend of emotional reaction?