Just a 🏳️🌈 bisexual ∞ neurodivergent 🇧🇷 brazilian 🚩 comrade that loves Berserk, JoJo’s and 🐧 Linux.
Skimming through this post, people actually believe in IQ?
IQ is not a good measurement of intelligence. It is at best one single measurement of pattern recognition, and it is not set in stone either, as you can get better or worse at it.
There’s multiple types of intelligence it doesn’t measure and honestly, I don’t believe anyone should take it serious.
Mine too, comrade 😞
I’m glad to help o7. Your work here is indispensable and greatly appreciated, comrade!
I gotta be honest, I don’t know your situation with this family member, but you can’t be in the defensive in this kind of situation, because it will always lead to this sort of interaction. Since this person is just gonna keep pushing your boundaries you don’t have a lot of options, but it would probably be a good idea to push back and assert your position, tho you probably should also call them out on their bullshit with actual evidence.
The best thing to do would probably be to sit down and have a real talk with this person while having other people around that can back you up on what your talking points and set some hard boundaries going forward if they refuse to listen to reason. This is a shitty situation that demands a lot of effort and evidence to revert, unfortunately.
I believe you’re misinterpreting what comrade Cowbee is saying. Primitive here is not a moral term being used to say something is savage, it’s merely a descriptor of the system in the past, before the advancements that allow it to take on a new form.
The distinction here is important because both systems are different and because we cannot simply go back to a past mode of production.
Are artists who work for themselves something that only occurs in the US and Europe? I guess I just live under a rock, genuinely did not know.
Of course not and it’s not something I said didn’t exist, but rather not a majority like you implied it is, at least not from my experience observing it.
I don’t know what “antagonizing” has to do with anything here, and if you work for yourself you are by definition petty-bourgeois. How successful you are at that isn’t relevant. The point is not about moralizing, I get the impression when you talk about “antagonizing” you are moralizing these terms and acting like “petty-bourgeoisie” is an insult. It’s not. Many members of the petty-bourgeoisie are genuinely good people just trying to make their way in the world. It’s not a moral category.
I didn’t mean antagonizing in a moralistic way. Yes your definition is correct on paper, but I responded the way I did because of the way you initially talked about artists with contempt. I get what you were trying to say now, but saying it that way is not gonna win artists’ hearts even if they do become as a whole extremely proletarianized.
In my personal experience (I have no data on this so take it with a grain of salt), petty-bourgeois artists tend to be more difficult to appeal to because even in the cases where they have left-leaning tendencies, they tend to lean more towards things like anarchism where they believe they can still operate as a petty-bourgeois small producer.
I get what you’re saying, I have seen this type of behavior before, mainly from english-speaking artists, but that is not my experience with artists from outside the imperial core. Here in Brasil at least, I tend to see a lot of left-leaning artists that understands their place in class society and class struggle. Maybe it’s something more specific to my country, I don’t know.
For the rest of your comment I completely agree. Also, just to be clear I’m not on the side of banning AI or promising artists things are gonna stay the way they are, but rather on the side of advocating for their organization and education on class dynamics and struggle. In fact there are already examples of artists organizing here in Brasil, like the movement UNIDAD.
I see, in this case I agree with you on this.
Also, A+ post comrade. I wish I had said that in my previous comment, but I basically reached the character limit there.
(1) Marxists are pro-centralization, not decentralization. We’re not anarchists/libertarians. This is good for us as it lays the foundations for socialist society, while also increasing the contradictions within capitalist society, bringing the socialist revolution closer to fruition.
OP is not advocating for decentralization, this is a misrepresentation of their point. My understanding is that he was talking about how decentralized social media also ends up centralized, and provided examples of that. I don’t think this point has much to do with AI, tho.
(2) Much of your discussion just regards how AI is turning artists into an “extension of the machine” and further alienating their labor. But, like, that’s already true for most workers. Petty bourgeois artists will have to fall to the low, low place of the common working man… gasp! The reality is that it is good for us, because a lot of these petty bourgeois artists, precisely because they are “self-made” and not as alienated from their labor as regular workers, tend to have more positive views of property right laws. If more of them become “extensions of the machine” like every proles, then their interests will become more materially aligned with the proles. They would stop seeing art as a superior kind of labor that makes them better and more important than other workers, but would see themselves as equal with the working class and having interests aligned with them.
This is a completely US/Euro-centric view of what artists are and it’s fucked up to say. We should not be celebrating more workers getting the short end of the stick, we should be showing them solidarity and showing them the way to organization. Antagonizing them just because you think they are petite-bourgeois is completely counterproductive. Most artists are either just making ends meet or working for big companies like every other worker, only a rather small minority of artists would fit the petty-bourgeois label.
(4) Clearly, for the proletariat, we “full proletarianization of the arts” is by definition a good thing for the proletarian movement.
This doesn’t mean they will suddenly develop class consciousness. They were never a part of the bourgeoisie to begin with, and therefore our interests were already aligned.
This is an interesting way of keeping the conversation alive outside of a single thread where it’s born, which I think is really needed in this case because AI is too recent and still divides a lot of people, specially on the left. And I think Yogthos post is interesting but sorely needs a proper critique of. The main issue with the disconnect here is that we clearly lack Marxist artists in this space to speak about genAI, its uses and its issues. Otherwise we cannot claim to know their struggle nor claim to have the accurate knowledge on the subject from their perspective.
I, as someone who loves and appreciates art, and who wants to someday become an artist, have a very difficult time seeing how eager people here are to just throw artists under the bus, claim they are a bunch petite-bourgeois or that they are a bunch of Luddites, which they mostly aren’t, art as a job is already a very proletarianized space, with artists working shit hours usually for shit pay too (just look at Japan), those that can hold it on their own are a very small minority, and artists are not going to data centers to smash the machines, even if some of them do have some Luddite rhetoric.
Furthermore, this vision people have of artists being petite-bourgeois without class consciousness is a very US/Euro-centric view. I follow a shit ton of artists in social media, and the ones I follow from my country (Brasil), even the ones with a big following, actually do tend to have class consciousness, understanding their place in class society and class struggle clearly, and no matter how much I see some of them hate genAI, rarely have I ever seen anyone advocate for the destruction of the tech, but rather advocate hardly for the need of regulation of it under capitalism.
Yogthos likes to use photography as an example, and on a previous discussion I had with him here, he used that a lot as a counterpoint to genAI not being human made art. In there I argued that genAI is not human made art because the human is not making it, but merely asking the machine to do it. To which he argued that its like photography, because it is just a tool to be used.
Thing is, when you ask for a steak at a restaurant you do not claim to have made it yourself, but rather to have ordered it, and the same applies to genAI. The amount of interference you have with the prompt does not mean you made it yourself still, but merely that you directed the machine to do it.
The points he makes with photography in his post are correct, but the issue with his example is that photography is not being replaced by genAI. Would his example still make sense if instead of taking a photo, he asked a humanoid robot to take it? Obviously in that example, it is clear that he is not the one taking the photo, but the robot is. Now let’s say you give clear instructions for the robot on how to take the best picture you can imagine on a given moment. No matter how many instructions you give the robot, at the end, did you take the picture, or did the robot do it? At best you assisted the robot and can say it was a joint effort between the two of you. This is the same situation with artists and genAI.
When cameras became widespread to the point now where everyone have one in their pockets, that’s true democratization of the tool. It stopped being expensive and a niche and became more accessible to the masses. With genAI that is not exactly what we are seeing, but rather the birth of a new medium of art, one that is machine made. True democratization of art would be properly teaching it to people from a young age. Learning about art and how to express ourselves, make music, draw, write, take photos, etc, should have the same weight as learning math or physics. To make art all you need is a pencil and a paper, but because we are not taught the skill, we don’t know how to do it, and thus see the shiny new robot that can do it as the way forward for the democratization of art.
Are they still subject to a central, technocratic authority, driven by the same motivations as their sister systems? Yes, they are.
The point you’re making here about centralization under decentralized social media is interesting and definitely something that need to be discussed, but I don’t see how it relates do genAI like you’re proposing it does. I think this is a separate discussion.
It is the democratization of skill. It is the alienation of the Artist from the labor of producing art. As such, it does not matter that this technology has become “democratized” via open-source channels because at the heart of the technology, it’s intention and design, it’s implementation and commodification, lay the alienation of the artist from the process of creating art. It is not the “democratization” of “creativity”.
Completely agree. And I add, you don’t often see people discuss the joy of creation and the process that motivates people to pursue art, be it as hobby or as a job, and yet that is extremely important to the conversation.
“Creativity is not an inherent quality of tools — it is the product of human intention”. One of the obvious things that these generative models exhibit is a clear and distinct lack of intention. I believe that this lack of “human intention” is explicitly what drives people’s repulsion from the end product of generative art.
I used to think like this, but I think it is a vibes based analysis. Art doesn’t need to have intention behind it to be appreciated, the same way it doesn’t need to have intention or to be human made to be considered art. Here’s an example I used when debating Yogthos before: Ruby the elephant artist.
There are endless sources of artists whose roles as creators have been reduced to that of Generative Blemish Control Agents, cleaning up the odd, strange, and unintentioned aspects of the AI process.
I agree and this is extremely important. The same is also happening in the dev industry and not only are these devs and artists being alienated from their work, they now have more work to do having to fix the output of the machine, when the whole promise of AI and automation is to free us.
However, their market economy is not anymore or less susceptible to the whims of capital desires than any other market.
This is where the issue starts with your post, it is the same type or arguments made to deny that China is socialist, even tho I don’t believe that’s your intention. You really need to prove this claim, because as it stands, I don’t think it holds any weight. You can make this argument for certain sectors of the Chinese market, but China have their key industries nationalized and under the control of the communist party and the people.
One prime example recently was the speculative nature of their housing market, which the state is resolving through a slow deflation of the sector and seizure of assets, among other measures.
Sure, but China it upon the state to fix the crisis while making their stance of house speculation pretty clear. “Houses are for living, not for speculation” - Xi Jinping. If this was a capitalist country we would have seen a disaster unfold.
Tho, if your point here is about how the rise of AI in China is obeying the logic of external capitalist demand, I do agree, but China can’t simply lay back and let the capitalist world, mainly the US, become a powerhouse in a tech that is now being developed and that they don’t yet dominate. Like it or not, AI is the new arms race.
The incredible innovation under the “Socialist model” still performs the same desired processes of alienation that capitalists in the west are searching for, just at a far cheaper cost. This demand is one of geopolitical economy, where using free trade principles, DeepSeek intends to drive demand away from US-based solutions and into its coffers in China.
Ok, here’s the thing. Will China use these AI tools to replace workers and throw them under the bus? I don’t have enough knowledge about China to answer that, but, if instead of simply replacing them, China uses this tech to reduce the amount of work instead of increasing it and transition these workers into new jobs, them this is a non-issue, as that is how it should be handled.
So at its heart, it has not changed what AI does for people, only how expensive AI is for capitalists in year-to-year operations. What good is this open-source tool if what is being open sourced are the same demands and desires of the capitalist class?
Your not taking into consideration that the US tech AI bubble worked by having these capitalist pigs throw around a shit ton of money in hopes that the next breakthrough in the tech that would result in a monopoly was near, which its closed source design also corroborated. DeepSeek shattered that notion. It showed that you don’t need nearly enough capital to make it work well. That itself is already a good punch, but then they proceed to Open Source it and deliver the second punch.
It is not enough for us to look at the mechanical productive force that generative AI represents, and brush it aside as simply the wheels of progress turning. To do so is to alienate a large section of the working class, a class whose industry constitutes the same percentage of GDP as sectors like Agriculture.
Absolutely agree. That’s why I think we should stand with the artists and should not be using genAI in it’s current form where the artists are being replaced by a machine that only came to be with the unpaid labor of non-consenting artists. To continue to use it as it is right now is to yell a big FUCK YOU to them.
We should instead help them organize, show solidarity, inform other workers that are hostile to them right now, advocate and push for regulation, while also participating in the creation of these tools in the open without the issues presented above.
The bridge thing is just the one that’s mostly known about and for good reason. He was a Swedish guy playing PUBG on the internet, there was no conceivable way in that situation that he should have thought of the N word nor outright said it, specially with a hard r.
I don’t know about his current content and honestly I don’t care, I used to watch him when I was young and naive. What I know is that recently, I believe a couple months ago, he did a video praising Mishima again, so that’s a pretty big indicative to me that he is still the same person or at least still hold the same beliefs.
Unless he comes out denouncing all the shit and harm he has caused and makes a genuine effort to stray away from that, I won’t hold a candle to him. The only other youtuber/influencer like him that I know that actually did that is iDubbbz.
If you want to know more about Mishima himself, the relationship of his image with the alt right, and why it is relevant for knowing about PewDiePie’s political beliefs, there’s this article in the Jacobin about it.
I wonder what kind of phenomenon causes this and if there is any psychological research behind that.
I never seen any research on that, but I hope there is. I’ll take a wild guess and say that it’s probably linked to both, the way internet changed how we interact with people, and the hyper-individualization of capitalism.
And thanks for the link to the essay comrade, I’ll certainly read it!
I’m glad to be able to inform!
Like the comments above, they’re seeing what looks like a petty morality crusade years after a guy who makes stupid videos let a bad word slip, which, yeah, looks ridiculous out of context.
Yep, but there is also a weird parasocial relationship a lot of people have with him where everything wrong he does is just an oopsie, to the point where even when someone has the full context of what I mentioned, a lot of people can’t seem to add 1 + 1 and come to the conclusion that it isn’t just a bunch of mistakes, but rather who he is as a person. The pattern of repetition with him is always muffled by the constant barrage of people that will not hold him accountable, if you visit Reddit right now you will see just that on every Linux related sub.
It’s also a very chicken-or-egg question I think. I’m genuinely curious: Do internet/podcast/streamer celebrities get their status from already being like this, and signaling the fashy bros club that they’re ready to join the “in group” , or do they get pulled and influenced into that circle because they innocently found success from stupid videos?
It’s honestly both. The algorithm on social media platforms will favor right-wing content for a myriad of reasons, ranging from simply being part of the status quo and/or playing into suppressed prejudice of easily impressionable/influenceable people, all the way to the fact that the right is the one that holds the means to create, publicize and boost this type of content, while the left usually do not have the resources needed to do so, you can look at Prager U in the US for example, or think-tanks like Brasil Paralelo here in Brasil, where they will create a lot of very right-wing content and push it hard into the masses, usually buying a shitload of ads that will end up everywhere, included in leftist content on YouTube for example.
The Internet used to be about cats and gaming used to be a hobby divorced from political office except when someone tried to argue they “cause violence” every few years.
Yeah, the monopolization of the internet sucks, hopefully it’s not impossible to revert that. Federated social media like Lemmy here (yay!) is a good step to that, but I hope more and more people will just create websites for their interests.
I’ll disagree on the gaming point tho, gaming, like every media has always been political, it’s just that now-a-days there is a large portion of reactionary content in the pop culture and gaming communities where everything is “woke” and whatnot. And even when the content of the game might not have been political by themselves, like Tetris for example, the conditions surrounding its inception and distribution certainly were.
There is also the issue with gaming journalism, where it ends up being just a corp controlled ad for the games rather than being actual critic of the media being played. It’s like a dystopian version of cinema where the content and the message doesn’t matter, only that you help sell it to maintain your brand on the good side of these gigantic publishers.
Except PewDiePie is not that. Sure he apologized for saying the N word hard-r. But then proceeded to create a whole racist campaign against India in the name of fighting the corpo T-Series where he made one of the most racist songs I’ve ever heard.
Then there’s the whole antisemitic Fiverr thing where if he genuinely did it to prove that any heinous shit could happen there, he still didn’t need to do it that way.
Then there’s Musk and Shapiro in his channel.
Then there’s the Nazis in his audience.
Then you have the bunch of incel and machist memes he reacted and laughed too constantly in his channel.
Then you have that he has gone on record saying more than once that his favorite author is the Japanese fascist Yukio Mishima.
And to top it all off you have the Christchurch shooter shouting him out.
PewDiePie has been a right wing fucker that has eased a shit ton of young people into the alt-right pipeline for years. The fact that people keep excusing him is just fucked up to no end.
Watch the video The PewDiePiepeline on YouTube.
Last time I discussed this with you didn’t really end well, but I genuinely think this is a pretty good post that I have some critiques of. I also want to clarify that some of the stuff you’re saying here was not made this clear in that previous discussion which led to some of our disagreements, which I’ll touch on briefly.
That being said, I believe you aren’t weighting much the issues of the way current models are constructed. And I’m not talking about the “copyright issue” we see plastered everywhere when it comes to the current discourse surrounding AI, because this discourse wants to simply maintain and enforce copyright as a system. I’m talking about how artists should have a say in how their work is used and should be compensated for their labor if they are to be used in these training models.
I can 100% see how this would not be an issue at all under a sufficiently advanced socialist society, since the way we would view and interact with our labor would be completely different than how it is under the current capitalist societies around the world. But the fact of the matter is that right now we live in these capitalist societies and these artists are being screwed over. If they don’t want their art to be part of the training model of these genAI tools, that should be enough for their work to not be used.
I strongly believe that caving in to how it is done right now and simply using these models that were built on the unpaid labor of countless non consenting artists is a huge slap to their faces. We should instead be on their side and educate people about these issues, while also advocating and participating in the constructions of new models that do not have these issues. The clarification you made in this post shows that your stance on this seen to largely be the same as mine, which was not something I got from your previous comments on this.
Also, as it is right now, workers are divided in a way where a lot of techbros and the general public just don’t give a shit about how this tech works or how it is constructed, and act actively antagonizing artists instead of uniting with them against these corpo controlled AIs.
No amount of ethical hand-wringing will halt development of this technology.
I don’t think anyone believes it will honestly. As far as the discourse on genAI goes, I haven’t seen many people that actually believe you can simply halt the development of the tech. What I have seen a lot of however is protesting against its use as it currently stands.
The technology itself is neutral, but its application becomes a tool of class warfare. To fight should be for public AI infrastructure, transparent models, community-driven training data, and worker-controlled governance. It’s a fight for the means of cultural production. Not because we naively believe in “neutral tech,” but because we know the alternative is feudalistic control.
This is a good point and I completely agree with your point here, but I have a question, isn’t the tech itself not neutral because of the conditions that resulted in it’s development? It was created for a political reason, and that is not inseparable from itself. To give an extreme example, nuclear bombs are not neutral just because it exists. It’s whole existence is political in nature. You can argue that it is a tool today, sure, but what uses would nuclear bombs have in a communist society?
The backlash against AI art often fixates on nostalgia for pre-digital craftsmanship.
Digital art exists, I don’t think it has anything to do with pre-digital craftsmanship, but rather there is a fixation on craftsmanship itself. Tho I wouldn’t say this is the only reason there is backlash against AI. The discourse surrounding it have in some ways advanced, and there are better arguments being made today.
One thing I never see discussed, maybe because it’s still unknown territory, is the plateau of the tech. It can never completely replace non-generated art, as people will still learn the skill or their own reasons, but can it completely replace drawing/painting as a job? And even if it could, would it actually replace it? Also, would it still make sense to exist and be used on a society with a different mode of production where capital and profit are not the main motors of society?
Damn, I’ll give it a try, thanks.
I’m not ace, but I mostly agree.
I haven’t seen in a while the kind of people that ships characters or people just because they dared breath in the same room, but I remember how that shit is annoying and even disgusting sometimes.
Most ships that I see online are usually something that makes sense or that are funny just because, like Venom and Robo-Ky (Guilty Gear) or V1 and Gabriel (Ultrakill) or Blueprint and Brainstorm (Balatro). And that I think is just genuinely fun. Although that’s probably because of the places I hang out online.
Now for the sexualization of everything, holy shit how I hate that. Like, I’m not gonna pretend I’m not a horny fuck sometimes that enjoy this shit on media, but it is annoying to see everything sexualized all the time, it makes you forget that media doesn’t need to be like that and that it is mostly that way both because it sells and because of machism. Two of the best anime I have ever seen that are currently living rent-free in my head are Dungeon Meshi and Frieren and they mostly lack any kind of sexualization. It’s genuinely just good ass fantasy stories with a lot of great woman characters that feels no need to sexualize or belittle them.
Same thing goes for many other things which allos sexualized or see in sexual way, be it friendly gestures, closeness with family and friends or just generally normally being together or spending time with someone. Real life isn’t a drama TV show where everyone’s cheating everybody and sleeping around with anyone they know or meet.
Oh yeah fuck that. This type of thing have had a lasting impression on how I interact with people because I grew around people that couldn’t fathom you interacting without second intentions, be those whatever it could be.
I can only imagine how this is all 100 fold more annoying to aro/ace people.
The video Everything wrong with the Political Compass by revolutionaryth0t is great if you want to inform yourself on why it is a bad measurement tool. It’s been a while since I watched it, but iirc they mention how it is based on the Heritage Foundation’s ideas at some point in the video.
I just rewatched the movie and I forgot how good it was. It leaves you feeling angry all the way throughout. Is the show any good despite the expected lib slop like in the screenshot?
What the actual fuck am I reading? I have never been exposed to such pungent liberal brain rot in my life as I have reading your comments in this thread.