We got marvel movies because internet leftists treated mass produced slop like valid art? Idealism lmao
Either way, who cares whether it’s considered art or not? We’re not leftists to revel in the essence of human creativity, we’re leftists to advance the interests of the working class. Agitprop isn’t produced to admire in museums, it’s to spread ideas and consciousness.
Im not going to litigate this because of a personal opinion on ai [i dont really care], but I think this argument misses material quality of the admirable aspects of “museum level” work [to use your terms] in agitprop. I mean obviously a random meme on lemmy doesn’t need to be held to that standard, but the agitprop made by the USSR is iconic and survives to this day, even after it’s intended audience is dead and outside of even the original language many of these were made in, for a reason.
I think there’s survival bias. For every super cool meme they made (like the “chad worker”), there were probably thousands of others that weren’t as cool.
I’m not equipped to argue the definition of art (I’ve read Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction twice and still don’t know if I get it). It seems like the concept of art is going through another radical transformation, and I’m not sure what it’ll look like on the other side.
I can see how usage of technology might reduce the artistic essence of a work (if we define it as something to do with human creation) but I don’t think it necessarily eliminates it. A human had a concept, thought of a way to communicate it, and used a fine-tuned tool to create a representation of it. It makes little difference in this case whether they used a paintbrush or a digital program.
That’s a pretty tangential response to your point.
I’d argue the survival of old agitprop has to do with its ability to resonate with people’s experiences, and human input is essential for authentic understanding. This isn’t precluded by the use of technology, but technology does make it easier for non-humans to pump out soulless garbage.
But it also can’t be understated that the experience of art in the 1700s is different than the experience of art in the 1900s is different than the experience of art will be in the next decade. The printing press obliterated the value of written text but made it accessible to the masses. Photographs and mechanical reproduction did the same to painting.
Even up until the internet, people might see a little bit of art occasionally when they travel or in poor definition on TV (ignoring TV itself as a new art form), so some essence of the old form still persisted.
But now we are inundated by content. I like the idea of buying a painting to hang on my wall, but after a month it stays the same while I’ve seen a hundred thousand new images.
The memetic speed of ideas spreads so much faster than it did in Soviet times, people don’t look at a single poster every day at their factory. They see a meme for five seconds and move to the next.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing, just that it’s new and unprecedented, so old tactics need to adapt.
We got Marvel movies because capitalists only value art insofar as it makes them money, leading to the aforementioned mass-produced slop. I’d rather not see mass-produced slop become a staple of any socialist future, personally.
AI slop as agitprop seems like a poor strategy when the average joe is polling as hating AI in general. You seem to have forgotten that this tech is primarily being developed by & for capitalists as one big pyramid scheme and has since become the aesthetic of fascist techbros. Who exactly do you think you’re going to win over by having an algorithm draw up a picture of Lenin with three eyes? Because the people you’re trying to appeal to are turned off by it by their own words. Sounds like you want us to shoot ourselves in the foot. How about we do everything we can to support actual creators on the Left instead of using the enemy’s cheap money printers to spam garbage?
I was of this opinion exactly but it is undialectical.
Please consider the following narrative:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
As lenin states in left wing communism, purism is absolute idiocy. While the party ideology must remain pure, the outside world never is and never will be.
We have to use populism, demagoguery, every dirty trick in the book.
Also he states that we must only judge deeds, never words. Everything is okay that gets the job done.
Btw this also happens in Germany where the left party wont vote for reforms because the alt right does. This is called ultraleftism and is dysfunctional crap.
I understand what you’re saying here and to an extent I do agree but as a writer myself I won’t deny my immediate bias against AI in the arts. My passion is under assault from machines that lack that same passion, used by people who are lazy and unskilled, promoted by the very people making my life as a prole actively worse for their own profit, and polluting the very medium I want to participate in. The arts have already been placed under siege by capitalism and AI is just another front in that war against human culture. This is a very personal issue for me as a consequence.
I sympathize. Still, this is textbook reactionism. Please reread your theory to let go of this nonsense. Its the same reactionism the luddites had (also for even better reasons because the machines actually killed them at times, they were very dangerous). But the issue is misdirected. It is not the machine that kills you, it is the factory owner, buying the machine and the system, enabling him.
With ai it is the same. It is a tool, nothing more. Try to explore it dialectically and you will see how much energy you are wasting thinking about this. Its not worth it.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it’s worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It’s precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is “reflexively rejected” requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
My argument is that it’s worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that’s worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all “consider” this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
More idealism. If you want to support workers, do so by overthrowing capitalism, not demanding they use specific pre-technological methods when creating content for your consumption.
If you find personal fulfillment out of buying stuff from artisans, that’s cool! Me too! But individual consumption has nothing to do with leftism.
Oh and where is Lenin’s third eye in the image? You’re making shit up to get mad at based on tech from years ago.
Not everything you disagree with is idealism. Please learn the definition of the word and stop abusing it.
If you want to support workers, do so by overthrowing capitalism, not demanding they use specific pre-technological methods when creating content for your consumption.
AI is not a “method” of creation; it is an imitation of it. You have not created anything - a machine did it for you. This is not a tool like a pen and paper, typewriter, or even just a basic computer and keyboard. The algorithm made this; not you. The algorithm is the creator; not you. This is the usurpation of human creativity by an imitative, automated process that is devoid of the same passion and intellect that a human creator is capable of.
We’re literally being robbed of our own creativity and you’re doing everything in your power to find an excuse for why that’s a good thing. What is the point of overthrowing capitalism if all the passions we were supposed to spend our newfound time and energy on have been taken up by machines instead? Actually think about the consequences of what you’re advocating for, please.
If you find personal fulfillment out of buying stuff from artisans, that’s cool! Me too! But individual consumption has nothing to do with leftism.
Never said otherwise. Strawman argument.
Oh and where is Lenin’s third eye in the image? You’re making shit up to get mad at based on tech from years ago.
I was not referencing the image directly. That was apparent to everyone except you, apparently.
How about we do everything we can to support actual creators on the Left instead of using the enemy’s cheap money printers to spam garbage?
Could the energy of tailism to artisanal reaction be better directed elsewhere? We are all products of liberal society, the phones we type and the internet we use as a result of capitalist production; it is in capitalism we find the seeds of its destruction.
It’s not “tailism” to point out that mainstream AI use is aiding in the capitalist destruction of not just culture and art but also our ability to think critically and engage with anything complex. There’s no “mass hysteria” going on here; these are legitimate concerns that deserve legitimate attention. You’re just doing the 21st century equivalent of what they did to the Luddites in the 1800s.
I brought up the Luddites because they’ve been dismissed out of hand as simply being technophobes - kind of like how critics of AI are being treated the same. It’s just dismissive of criticism without engaging with it. This is dangerous and definitely not dialectical.
No I’m dismissing luddites because they don’t go far enough with worker emancipation. I don’t think it is technophobia that’s the problem here, it is a deeper reaction.
We got marvel movies because internet leftists treated mass produced slop like valid art? Idealism lmao
Either way, who cares whether it’s considered art or not? We’re not leftists to revel in the essence of human creativity, we’re leftists to advance the interests of the working class. Agitprop isn’t produced to admire in museums, it’s to spread ideas and consciousness.
Im not going to litigate this because of a personal opinion on ai [i dont really care], but I think this argument misses material quality of the admirable aspects of “museum level” work [to use your terms] in agitprop. I mean obviously a random meme on lemmy doesn’t need to be held to that standard, but the agitprop made by the USSR is iconic and survives to this day, even after it’s intended audience is dead and outside of even the original language many of these were made in, for a reason.
I think there’s survival bias. For every super cool meme they made (like the “chad worker”), there were probably thousands of others that weren’t as cool.
I’m not equipped to argue the definition of art (I’ve read Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction twice and still don’t know if I get it). It seems like the concept of art is going through another radical transformation, and I’m not sure what it’ll look like on the other side.
I can see how usage of technology might reduce the artistic essence of a work (if we define it as something to do with human creation) but I don’t think it necessarily eliminates it. A human had a concept, thought of a way to communicate it, and used a fine-tuned tool to create a representation of it. It makes little difference in this case whether they used a paintbrush or a digital program.
That’s a pretty tangential response to your point.
I’d argue the survival of old agitprop has to do with its ability to resonate with people’s experiences, and human input is essential for authentic understanding. This isn’t precluded by the use of technology, but technology does make it easier for non-humans to pump out soulless garbage.
But it also can’t be understated that the experience of art in the 1700s is different than the experience of art in the 1900s is different than the experience of art will be in the next decade. The printing press obliterated the value of written text but made it accessible to the masses. Photographs and mechanical reproduction did the same to painting.
Even up until the internet, people might see a little bit of art occasionally when they travel or in poor definition on TV (ignoring TV itself as a new art form), so some essence of the old form still persisted.
But now we are inundated by content. I like the idea of buying a painting to hang on my wall, but after a month it stays the same while I’ve seen a hundred thousand new images.
The memetic speed of ideas spreads so much faster than it did in Soviet times, people don’t look at a single poster every day at their factory. They see a meme for five seconds and move to the next.
I’m not saying it’s a good thing, just that it’s new and unprecedented, so old tactics need to adapt.
We got Marvel movies because capitalists only value art insofar as it makes them money, leading to the aforementioned mass-produced slop. I’d rather not see mass-produced slop become a staple of any socialist future, personally.
AI slop as agitprop seems like a poor strategy when the average joe is polling as hating AI in general. You seem to have forgotten that this tech is primarily being developed by & for capitalists as one big pyramid scheme and has since become the aesthetic of fascist techbros. Who exactly do you think you’re going to win over by having an algorithm draw up a picture of Lenin with three eyes? Because the people you’re trying to appeal to are turned off by it by their own words. Sounds like you want us to shoot ourselves in the foot. How about we do everything we can to support actual creators on the Left instead of using the enemy’s cheap money printers to spam garbage?
I was of this opinion exactly but it is undialectical.
Please consider the following narrative:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
As lenin states in left wing communism, purism is absolute idiocy. While the party ideology must remain pure, the outside world never is and never will be.
We have to use populism, demagoguery, every dirty trick in the book.
Also he states that we must only judge deeds, never words. Everything is okay that gets the job done.
Btw this also happens in Germany where the left party wont vote for reforms because the alt right does. This is called ultraleftism and is dysfunctional crap.
I understand what you’re saying here and to an extent I do agree but as a writer myself I won’t deny my immediate bias against AI in the arts. My passion is under assault from machines that lack that same passion, used by people who are lazy and unskilled, promoted by the very people making my life as a prole actively worse for their own profit, and polluting the very medium I want to participate in. The arts have already been placed under siege by capitalism and AI is just another front in that war against human culture. This is a very personal issue for me as a consequence.
I sympathize. Still, this is textbook reactionism. Please reread your theory to let go of this nonsense. Its the same reactionism the luddites had (also for even better reasons because the machines actually killed them at times, they were very dangerous). But the issue is misdirected. It is not the machine that kills you, it is the factory owner, buying the machine and the system, enabling him.
With ai it is the same. It is a tool, nothing more. Try to explore it dialectically and you will see how much energy you are wasting thinking about this. Its not worth it.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it’s worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It’s precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is “reflexively rejected” requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
I said there are some that reflexively reject ai. Do you dispute that?
Thats only a tiny part of what you said.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
Otherwise youre just incorrect.
My argument is that it’s worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that’s worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all “consider” this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
More idealism. If you want to support workers, do so by overthrowing capitalism, not demanding they use specific pre-technological methods when creating content for your consumption.
If you find personal fulfillment out of buying stuff from artisans, that’s cool! Me too! But individual consumption has nothing to do with leftism.
Oh and where is Lenin’s third eye in the image? You’re making shit up to get mad at based on tech from years ago.
Not everything you disagree with is idealism. Please learn the definition of the word and stop abusing it.
AI is not a “method” of creation; it is an imitation of it. You have not created anything - a machine did it for you. This is not a tool like a pen and paper, typewriter, or even just a basic computer and keyboard. The algorithm made this; not you. The algorithm is the creator; not you. This is the usurpation of human creativity by an imitative, automated process that is devoid of the same passion and intellect that a human creator is capable of.
We’re literally being robbed of our own creativity and you’re doing everything in your power to find an excuse for why that’s a good thing. What is the point of overthrowing capitalism if all the passions we were supposed to spend our newfound time and energy on have been taken up by machines instead? Actually think about the consequences of what you’re advocating for, please.
Never said otherwise. Strawman argument.
I was not referencing the image directly. That was apparent to everyone except you, apparently.
Oh no I have not “created anything”? Workers don’t “create”, they work. I have worked. Operating machines is work.
Have you created? Are you creating class? Is that class on the side of the working class or not?
Could the energy of tailism to artisanal reaction be better directed elsewhere? We are all products of liberal society, the phones we type and the internet we use as a result of capitalist production; it is in capitalism we find the seeds of its destruction.
It’s not “tailism” to point out that mainstream AI use is aiding in the capitalist destruction of not just culture and art but also our ability to think critically and engage with anything complex. There’s no “mass hysteria” going on here; these are legitimate concerns that deserve legitimate attention. You’re just doing the 21st century equivalent of what they did to the Luddites in the 1800s.
But then Marx happened and we’re not going back to ludditism. The point is to supercede ludditism; it doesn’t go far enough for worker emancipation.
https://redsails.org/artisanal-intelligence/
Missed the point of the analogy entirely.
I brought up the Luddites because they’ve been dismissed out of hand as simply being technophobes - kind of like how critics of AI are being treated the same. It’s just dismissive of criticism without engaging with it. This is dangerous and definitely not dialectical.
No I’m dismissing luddites because they don’t go far enough with worker emancipation. I don’t think it is technophobia that’s the problem here, it is a deeper reaction.
AI generated “art” is not going to emancipate workers. Please be serious.
Not under capitalism. I thought you said you were a marxist. Please be serious.