That’s exactly right. It is paid art where the quibble is, right? So if advancement in technology causes unemployment why does marxism propose not to burn the tech down? How do we sublimate this? GenAi is effectively showing us the limits of trade unionism, it is forcing us to confront capitalism itself and not be happy with concessions anymore.
Now this is idealism. You have no evidence for this assertion at all; it’s purely speculative.
And no, “paid art” wasn’t where the quibble was. That is a problem, certainly, but the crux of my issue with AI art is its soullessness and that it takes away the experience of creating & consuming art from real people and replacing it with a complete imitation devoid of the same substance. AI “art” doesn’t make you feel anything, think anything, or give you a memorable experience. It lacks the passion of something conceived of by a human mind and brought to fruition by human skill.
All dead labour is still labour.
And all automated mass production is still mass production.
Do you think if you haven’t figured it out it makes it true? I mean I’m happy to clarify but at some point people may take it personally, and therefore may just need some space. I’ve sent a link in the other reply if you’re interested in further reading.
Curious what you think I haven’t “figured out”? You’re already making this pretty personal with this very clear dig at my ability to understand so it’s a little late for the hand-wringing when the sentence before it is basically an insult.
That is a problem, certainly, but the crux of my issue with AI art is its soullessness
I think you are right there. The metasphysical conception of creativity is not in keeping with dialectical materialism.
And all automated mass production is still mass production.
So you agree that the proleteriat is involved. And under capitalism this tech alienates workers.
Curious what you think I haven’t “figured out”? You’re already making this pretty personal with this very clear dig at my ability to understand so it’s a little late for the hand-wringing when the sentence before it is basically an insult.
That was a response to the condescension here:
We have established nothing of the sort and so the axiom remains firmly in place.
^you could have clarified why instead of coming up with that nothingness. You just made a circular argument. And it was to a response to what I thought was a common ground you found. No you want to retreat to a supposed moral high ground.
I think given what you said about soulness that is obviously not dialectical materialist take I think we have reached a cross road here. It makes sense why the arguments against the arguments you have made are taken as arguments as you as a person.
Now this is idealism. You have no evidence for this assertion at all; it’s purely speculative.
And no, “paid art” wasn’t where the quibble was. That is a problem, certainly, but the crux of my issue with AI art is its soullessness and that it takes away the experience of creating & consuming art from real people and replacing it with a complete imitation devoid of the same substance. AI “art” doesn’t make you feel anything, think anything, or give you a memorable experience. It lacks the passion of something conceived of by a human mind and brought to fruition by human skill.
And all automated mass production is still mass production.
Curious what you think I haven’t “figured out”? You’re already making this pretty personal with this very clear dig at my ability to understand so it’s a little late for the hand-wringing when the sentence before it is basically an insult.
I think you are right there. The metasphysical conception of creativity is not in keeping with dialectical materialism.
So you agree that the proleteriat is involved. And under capitalism this tech alienates workers.
That was a response to the condescension here:
^you could have clarified why instead of coming up with that nothingness. You just made a circular argument. And it was to a response to what I thought was a common ground you found. No you want to retreat to a supposed moral high ground.
I think given what you said about soulness that is obviously not dialectical materialist take I think we have reached a cross road here. It makes sense why the arguments against the arguments you have made are taken as arguments as you as a person.
I will leave it there for now. Have a good day.
Unserious af