As an artist, I think it is a net negative for us. Disregarding the copyright issue, I think it’s also consolidating power into large corporations, going to kill learning fundamental skills (rip next generation of artists), and turn the profession into a low skill minimum wage job. Artists that spent years learning and perfecting their skills will be worth nothing and I think it’s a pretty depressing future for us. Anways thoughts?
That is exactly what will happen to any job that relies on human labour. If you can reduce labour time so that you can produce more of that product, wouldn’t you switch? When I think about AI art and artistry, I think about tailors from back then. It was a big profession, and people earned a lot of money especially considering machinery didn’t exist to the extent it did in the 1800s back then. When the industrial revolution came, it was reduced. Nowadays the ‘tailors’ work in sweatshops, just producing the same commodity, with little to no creativity embedded into the commodity.
It will be the same with artistry. Instead of designing creative works, and selling them off as commissions, there will be a point where there will be no need for such artist. The artist would be reduced, and therefore there would be no need for the artist. It’s a sad fate, but that’s how technology works. With technology, some jobs are reduced or eliminated as they are useless. I don’t believe AI art is a net negative, as it impacts the progress in technological progress, and besides, it would be a regression if we were to cut back the technological progress in art.
If we think about any positives for AI art, I mean, we could generate the art we needed. Or at least, provide AI assistance to artistry (like how for example, I would have a code generator as an assistant in my programming). It would reduce the value of art, yes, but it won’t be a net negative overall, especially in the long term.
Also in regards to the copyright issue, fuck anyone who says the reason they hate AI art is because it ‘breaks copyright’. This is a reactionary, petit bourgeois position, that no one should support.
Are you saying that you’d want to live in a world without artists, and encourage laziness by letting people just type in prompts for inspiration? Even when I lived in a certain former USSR country, kids were still taught to write in cursive down to the tiniest detail. It isn’t about making things more productive, it is about taking into account skills such as discipline, introspection, and persistence. As somebody who is on the fence about communism as a political ideology, I’m seriously disappointed by most of the replies in this thread. I am very critical of capitalism but just laying over and saying that this existential crisis is nothing more than a productive change for labor demands is demoralizing. Society is spiritually sick and not being critical of the development of technology in this system and what effects it has is going to end up killing our spirit, reducing everyone to just get through life instead of actually living and participating actively.
If you just want to live and have no dreams other than sitting on the computer or your phone and popping out kids (if you’re a woman) and living in a pod, then I really am not sure what your argument is in support of any ideology that harms the human spirit so much. I think you and everybody is worth more than that though. Everyone deserves to have dreams and goals.
You raise some interesting points that lead me to think about some further questions:
Artists use lots of other techniques to speed up the process, and when an artist knows value, tone, shape, line, perspective, etc, and the techniques of masters, the addition of modern technology (not AI) can result in amazing work. Is AI just another tool?
I imagine we’re not too far off connecting an algorithm to a 3D printer, so this might soon be sculptures, etc, not just digital images.
My knowledge of AI is limited. So if I’ve misunderstood something that you understand better, let me know. So…
China is perhaps the world leader in AI because it can rely on such a large dataset. The western equivalent data is more fragmented, so less useful for modelling. AI will be implemented in China as part of its socialism with Chinese characteristics to improve working conditions, automate jobs, reduce the working day, etc. Like the automated farming in Xinjiang. Doing so will create more free time for people in China to spendv making art, etc.
There’s a contradiction, here: freeing up the time for humans to fully realise themselves seems to rely on the very technologies that might make some activities redundant – and those are the activities that humans might need to perform to fully develop the human spirit. A veritable Catch 22.
Leading to…
Would you argue that e.g. China should abandon AI developments to avoid the risk of undermining art? (I’ll assume here that there is a risk.)
So much of what is accepted and promoted as art is distorted by capitalism. There’s an idea that ‘proper’ art is to be found in galleries, probably inside a frame and behind glass. Is this kind of art the paradigm of art?
If not, then who determines what is art?
Personally, I’ll still be visiting traditional and modern galleries even if AI art really takes off. And where I have the money, I’ll continue to support artists. So there will still always be a place for techniques invented in every epoch.
Which leads to by final two interrelated question for now…
I am not an expert but my partner is an aspiring animator and up to this date they have been motivated to make that dream come true. This has been devastating to many artists. Everyone deserves to have dreams, something to work for. For a lot of people, they don’t have anything but art and the dream of being able to “make it” as an artist. We are both married and gay so obviously we won’t be having children, and we don’t want any - so, it just feels like right now people really make it a point to make it known that they hate artists and that nobody deserves to have a dream or work toward a job that they like.
I think that reading through these replies have turned me off completely to exploring communism for the time being. I’m critical of capitalism and have been curious about exploring different ways of society existing outside of the devastating effects of capitalism, but it is sad that people even here don’t seem to value artists, and a couple of people have been openly hostile to question the development of AI in art. I refuse to believe that AI is being developed to create a utopia in many cases, I think it is seeking to displace many of us. I don’t know if the government would step in if everyone lost their job, and were completely unmotivated to continue on with life without something to look forward to.
Even more the technology is developed directly by people that want to displace people completely (I know Elon Musk is a huge investor for AI art programs). I don’t understand why anybody would want to defend the practice as a good thing.
I understand wanting to automate a job that is pure drudgery but people actually enjoy making art.
I want to make a few points and perhaps reiterate what @kig_v2@lemmygrad.ml said: you can see it more now that others joined in the conversation, but there is no set view on art by communists, so don’t let a few disagreements put you off. Also, it may be helpful to separate the views of individual communists from the idea of communism. And that’s what I wanted to clarify…
Communism is the end goal. It’s never been achieved. People may call themselves communists who aspire to bringing in a communist (or, first, a socialist) revolution. But it’s not possible to talk to anyone who has lived in a fully communist society to find out what they think of art. We can only ask people who are imperfectly working things out under the distorting influence of capitalism.
The question in the OP was about thoughts on AI art, so that’s what people discussed. Most people answering that question in any setting, even artists, communists, or communist artists will not be basing their view on considered art theory. Commenting on posts like this on Lemmygrad is a way for people to work out what they think. And people around here regularly change their minds after a mini struggle session.
As kig_v2 said MLs (Marxist Leninists) will propose that their view aligns with Marxist theory – it’s what Marxists do. This can result in the type of comment that I think has particularly annoyed you. This is where an ML remarks on a historical fact, such as that AI technology is here, and that capitalists will use it to their advantage like they use every other technology.
MLs can appear to be nihilistic in this and imply that we cannot or should not do anything about the historical fact. But that’s a mischaracterisation, I think.
Some very brief theory to help make the above clearer. The Marxist world outlook is called dialectical and historical materialism. From this perspective, Marxists criticise capitalism not just for its moral failings but also (perhaps mainly) because they see that capitalism is not sustainable for being riddled with unsolvable contradictions. Marxism is the study of the process of change, and it sees change as driven by internal contradiction.
This applies to everything. Including to the internal contradictions of AI, and AI art – as processes interconnected with other, broader processes.
Anyway, if you’re interested in what someone has to say about art who has both read art theory and Marxist theory, you may enjoy John Berger’s, Ways of Seeing. His Landscapes and Portraits are also very good compilations of vignettes on famous artworks.
Thanks for the book recommendations, I’ll check it out!
You’re welcome. Berger also made a BBC series with the same title (the book might be based on the series) but I’ve never been able to find a copy (I haven’t looked that hard, mind).
After being on this thread today, I decided I’m going to take a break from being online at this point at least as it relates to politics. Thanks for the book recommendations and also your insight about communism.
There has been a couple of people here who have been very nice and seem to be interested in socialism to help other people and are taking into account these big questions about what it means to he human, and what makes life worth living. I appreciate yours and their insight in this thread.
Thanks very much for your insight and also the books recommendations. I’ll see if I can find a copy at the library and keep thinking about these issues. Maybe I can try to see if there’s a way that Marxism fits and offers any insight and answers.
I thought about it and we live in a really difficult time with all of these changes and everything that is going on with the world. It isn’t easy.
drawing in-betweens all day is the definition of drudgery. if an AI can do it with a human checking the results it would mean a human can make more keyframes. it would mean increased profits for studios under capitalism rather than more jobs for animators, sure, but under socialism if arts are funded and developed by state grants it would mean more independent animation groups could put out more original animations that look better because all of the human effort goes to storyboards, keyframes, choosing colors carefully, tightening up the script, and so on.
The thing is that technology is being developed to replace artists, not to help them create more.
Would you rather work 3 years on a short or work on 3 shorts a year? Embrace the tech that exists. Your time has value. More than what you’re being paid for it.
That would be the case if we were talking about artist-aiding AI, not artist-replacing AI. One would be very much welcome to replace the menial aspects of animation, the other would render us moot.
I said this to another person, but AI is being developed to replace artists, not to help make them more productive. If something so central to what makes it worth being alive is being replaced, then what is the point? It’s okay to not embrace some technology. It doesn’t make you a Luddite.
I never said artists shouldn’t exist. I said that artists were going the same trajectory as the tailors many decades ago. This is just how technology progression works. Technology progression advances to a point where jobs like tailors were being reduced. I also never said that people should type in prompts for inspiration. I just said that AI art has some benefits, and I don’t think that it is a net negative overall.
And these skills can be broken down in simple processes, complex labour can be transformed into a series of steps that a computer can be able to solve. It may take time for that to ever be generated, but it is a possibility.
Communism is not a political ideology. Communism is a mode of production. Can you please read theory before you start to make political bullshit like that?
If you find this stressful, I’m sorry for speaking my opinion on what the current trajectory artistry is going. But it’s my opinion. It may be demoralising, but that’s why we have ignorance. I know, as a programmer, any work I do will probably be replaced by an AI. In fact, it already exists to a degree, known as Github Co-pilot. I’m not fearful for this in the slightest, because I know this will happen eventually.
This reminds me of a term said by Socrates, regarding being against writing for it supposedly ‘rendering the human population’ forgetful. If he was wrong, and it actually improved people’s lives, then technology will as well. AI art is no exception.
Ah yes. Can you clearly tell me what is this ‘Human Spirit’? I would love to know more beyond what you just say than what is a product of the mind.
Oh dear.
You are being rude and not making your ideology any more appealing honestly. I don’t care to be insulted and cursed at and it’s not why I said something in the first place. I believe that AI in art is going to be demoralizing for most people and artists in general. I don’t know why you are trying to defend something that was developed by capitalists and technocrats in Silicon Valley.
It is clear you are not an artist and don’t have any interest at all in thinking critically about the systematic issues that would make AI in art such an ethical delimma for so many people.
Then why bother replying with that original statement to begin with? Just saying.
I’m not. If AI art wasn’t developed by capitalists, it would definitely be developed by socialists. It would come about eventually.
I never said I’m an artist. I’m a programmer. Programming is also something I enjoy. That doesn’t mean I know that there is a possibility that my job will get replaced. I know that will happen, regardless if I dislike it or not. The same will happen to Artistry. If we’re willing to regress technology to retain jobs, then aren’t we just petit-bourgeois idealists, rather than socialists?
If you aren’t an artist and don’t appreciate the amount of time, skills, and labor that goes into creating art then of course you wouldn’t see a problem with automating something that is central to the human experience and is the center of many people’s passion and dreams.
It sounds like you don’t care much about your job being automated because you have given up on life for the most part. You’re fine with the prospect of things getting so bad that nobody has any dreams any more. The government isn’t going to step in when everything becomes automated and give us UBI. It won’t be a utopia.
You won’t get to sit on your phone and Linux computer browsing Lemmy and prompting AI art and games. It’s not the kind of reality that you think it will be, if everything gets automated.
It is hard to say whether or not a “socialist” society would advance AI or not but a lot of what I have seen here is computer programmers (not artists) hate on artists or anybody who has dreams to do anything meaningful with their lives.
The reason anything is worth doing is because it is challenging and because it takes serious commitment.
I don’t think you can compare “enjoying” being a computer programmer to somebody who is devoted to being an artist and has spent years perfecting their craft. The problem here is that I see many people implying that they cannot do it themselves when in fact anybody can put in the effort to do anything they want. You could be an artist if you wanted.
It isn’t about retaining jobs, it is about people’s aspirations and drive to keep living. The meaning of life itself. When you take that away, what is left? What are you living for? You’re probably living because you believe in something or have aspirations to be able to spend time doing something that you love. To connect with other people.
This is a really poor take. Programmers spend years honing their craft and work long hours like anybody else. In fact, way morose than artists, programmers are expected to study in their free time after work. If you don’t tell an employer your after work hobby is programming and programming is your only passion, you won’t get hired. We’re all in the same boat, artists aren’t some special enlightened class.
Artists, and I mean this more broadly than just the visual arts, often dedicate their life to their work. There isn’t necessarily a free time after work because most artists have to cobble together multiple freelance and part-time incomes to scrape by. You missed their broader point that programmers are speaking as an authority on a field they know very little about.
Rubbish. Nothing Gopnik Award said is speaking authoritatively to the experience of artists, just to their own experience.
Thanks, and you’re right - they don’t know. Literally, and I mean quite literally, everyone I know who went into programming or CS has done so for the money and status. Who in their right mind thinks that they are going to get rich being an artist? The only guy I know who isn’t at all interested in CS for the money is studying privacy and other ethical issues at the academic level. I know he’s very passionate about cryptology and math, and has devoted a lot of time to educating a lot of people about what he knows.
Artists I think are also use to criticism (especially the more they advance). So are educators or anybody that is in front of an audience.
Programmers and people who are defending AI don’t know what it’s like to have their work criticized and they can’t handle it. It’s because they aren’t artists and will resort to throwing insults or dogpiling instead of actually thinking about the criticism they are recieving.
For somebody who does art as their full-time day job you sure seem to think way more highly of programmers and not very highly of artists. I know you replied to another user saying that you were a full time artist but I doubt that is true. Prompting AI on Mid journey and all the other stuff you listed doesn’t make you a full time artist.
I’m not at war with programmers. My husband is a programmer. Programmers are fellow proletariat and potential comrades. There’s also a lot of overlap, most artists in my field do a small bit of programming as part of their day. Either with code or more often with node graphs. And tech artists spend most of their days only programming but they’re absolutely still artists and couldn’t do their jobs without art skills. You should stop thinking of this as a us vs them.
Most people enter programming and CS, in general, for the money. I don’t think that anybody who is an artist expects to go in it to get rich. You are wrong about programmers spending more time developing their skills as opposed to artists. I live in Austin and am around programmers all the time - they have the money, time, energy and resources to do and get most things they need and want. My wife and I are in the arts and can barely afford to live but the reason we keep going is because we are motivated to keep going and we haven’t sold our souls.
The one person I know who is genuinely passionate about CS is doing graduate school and studying ethics within the field. He didn’t go into it for the money and honesty I haven’t met anybody else like him.
People often have passions for things. That is true. That does not mean anything when automation is generally trending towards replacing manual labour. Artistry will be like a Tailor, it will be reduced towards something of little value, and eventually no value, as all general trends go when automation is in progress.
I really haven’t, but go off. I feel pretty much fine as it stands now.
Nobody having dreams anymore because their job is being reduced? I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite, but like I said, go off.
Are you imagining this happening under capitalism? You’re just implying that “socialism is when the government does stuff.”
A socialist society should trend towards the development of the productive forces. This includes any industry that should be reduced towards AI. Without the development of the productive forces, we will regress. Also you’re generalising it to the point where programmers hate artists? Go off.
Did anyone have freight when tailors were being reduced to the point where they are working in sweatshops overseas? Or when programmers are being replaced by a ‘code generating assistant’? No, so why should it be the case of artistry as well? You’re just separating the artistry outside every other craft.
What will you be doing when your job is automated, and when there is no value to learning artistic and creative processes? Do you genuinely believe that a socialist government will take over our current system to derail the moral and existential threats of AI? Socialism appeals to me because capitalism doesn’t make any room to consider quality of life and these are the reasons most people are critical of it on a variety of levels.
It sounds like you have given up on life if you think that you can deduce everything as quantitative labor, and feel better about yourself and the situation by reducing a person’s dream as “Oh well, it happened to tailors.”
There are a lot of people in the world who work industrial jobs such as sweatshops with hopes and dreams of connecting with other people through art, either through a job or some kind of community focused on artistic expression. My entire argument is that art is much more important to people than just doing a job - it is beyond “enjoying” something for some money.
It is really odd to me that you consider yourself a socialist and yet seem to have no regard and are arguing against my point that this is having and will continue to have a very negative impact on people’s quality of life. It has already caused despair and it will have a negative impact on education and development.
The way that these programs are used and the way that the data is obtained is unethical and beyond that it is not contributing anything since art never needed to be automated.
Like I’ve said and keep saying, anybody can be an artist if they put in the work. Even my partner, who has a disability, carpal tunnel in her wrist from working at a grocery store pushing 1,000 lbs pallets, takes time every day to work on her skills and has been beset by a number of factors in her life. What keeps her going is that she can work on becoming an artist so she can share her work with other people, and inspire them to do the same no matter how shitty their situation is.
People need something to live for. People deserve to feel like they’re good at something and are contributing their skills and interests to also motivate people to keep going in life.
I would like to participate in this conversation but I am short on time and energy so all I will say is: whether you do or don’t like people’s opinions on this, I hope you recognize that Lemmygrad is a single, small community of Marxist-Leninists and that you can want and need communism (really, socialism, but anyways), a scientifically and morally proven ideology, and still have personal moral, ethical, and philosophical disagreements with people who claim the same broad banner–Marxism Leninism seems like a niche ideology, but worldwide outside of the English-speaking sphere it is practiced by over a billion people actively to this day. There is going to be a LOT of variety of opinions on EVERYTHING, and people will use the lens of communism to rationalize polar opposite positions.
I myself disagree plenty with many communists on certain issues. For example, a large amount of communists are stereotypically very atheist and anti-religion and anti-spiritual, and I wholeheartedly disagree with this–I for one want to work on sythesizing communism with religious/spiritual belief, both because I passionately believe it to be good but also pragmatically as a strategy for the world we live in. I can very easily use the lens of communism to rationalize my niche positions just as they too can very easily do the same, even though our opinions on religion/spirituality may be very disparate.
What I am trying to say is, please do not ultimately decide your political journey on the fickle plethora of opinions that communists in one hyper specific community might hold, because ultimately you disagreeing with people on this art topic does not make you or anyone else here a communist or not a communist. I understand in human reality we end up liking or disliking stuff based on our simple human experiences, I just don’t want you to turn away from an ideology that, if you give it a chance, will show you you overwhelmingly that it is worthy of your trust and passion, that it is a proven force for good in this sick, twisted world you see so clearly, and that it will always be this way even if you meet another communist who may say XYZ thing you hard disagree with.
We can always argue, and even if socialism was brought to fruition in the entire world, there will still be struggles to shape society for the better; there may very well be a battleground one day along these very issues where us comrades here find ourselves at odds with each other. But while the primary issue is destroying the capitalist hegemony and establishing socialism, we are all allies, even if we may be critical of each other.
I could continue rambling but I hope I got my point across.
I appreciate it and I haven’t given up on being open to communism. This has just left a sour taste in my mouth because like religion (I myself would consider myself to be some sort of Christian), art is something that is deeply spiritual and sacred to many people’s lives. Some people have devoted their lives to it and deserve to be able to share it. It isn’t just something that people enjoy doing for a job, it is much deeper than that.
I’ve seen a lot of hate toward art and spirituality in ML circles and it is disappointing. At the end of the day, because of this and because I’m LGBT, I’m worried I can’t trust a lot of the people in the ideological circle.