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?
The two posts you made in this post were just dunking on artists as just wanting to go into it to just be among capitalists and be the next Piccaso. Which is honestly ridiculous. Nobody wants to be an artist to get rich. On the flip side, everyone wants to get into tech to get rich, unless you are planning to go into academia or research with the aim of helping people and that isn’t often. Just look at AI developers. They aren’t creating the technology out of goodwill. It isn’t beyond reality to assume that most of the people defending AI aren’t artists. I’m going to call it for what it is: people who hate artists are jealous and they hate anybody who puts in the mental and physical labor to doing something that requires effort. Literally anybody is allowed to do what they want and deserves to feel good about building their skills in something. Being an armchair political theorist on Lemmy and online circles takes literally zero effort but it takes effort to do anything creative. Prompting AI game assets and furry boobs and overly rendered space porn doesn’t count.
Since all you care about is just programmers at this point, let’s go to your side of the story.
Artistry is also a job, like how programming is a job. With Artistry, you claim that everyone is an artist to “emphasise their creativity”. That they don’t care about money or getting rich. The mentality you put on the Artist, does not align with the capitalist society whatsoever. Most artists are proletarian, forced to design art based on the need of the company. If they were ever to design art that they truly enjoy, then they wouldn’t have a stable income unless if the bourgeois class enjoys your particular work. I mean, designing art utilising your own means of production, it’s the standard definition of petit bourgeois. Meaning that the artist that you set in your mind is petit bourgeois. You emphasise individualism above everything else, especially above the needs of the collective.
What about a programmer? It is true that a programmer can be petit bourgeois, working for themselves to design a product. However, very few programmers do this, and instead they rather work for the bourgeoisie directly, relying on a wage and instead following orders. You simply direct every programmer as proletarian, and meanwhile you direct every artist as petit bourgeois. This is why I posted that image from earlier. You’re just utilising a petit bourgeois mentality, specifically individualism.
One last question since you seem hellbent on AI taking over work: what do you expect people are going to do when everything is automated by AI? Sit and decay and rot?
Speaking as a western (former) programmer, I believe it would be a mistake to classify most of us western programmers as proletariat. I’d argue we fall squarely into either the labour aristocracy or the petite bourgeoisie (whether we run our own companies, or receive financial instruments like RSUs as part of our overall compensation package).
And I strongly suspect that’s part of the defensiveness on display here from the tech world for their latest labour-stealing project (deep learning models that are entirely dependent upon vast repositories of human labour, aka “training datasets,” in order for them to have any utility).
edit: -1 already? It seems I’ve struck a nerve :)
That makes no sense. People who go into the arts (specifically the entertainment industry) do things that are in demand and for the “bourgeoisie”. Everyone needs entertainment and novel ideas, or else they literally go crazy. There’s a reason that sensory deprivation in prisons is torture.
I feel like you’re doing a bunch of mental gymnastics to defend AI and dump on people in general who want to devote their time to doing something that is in line with developing their own skills and contributing to the well being of themselves and others.
You haven’t made any good arguments in support of AI if that is what your goal is to change my mind here.
The fact that you have deviated from your original statement, and put bourgeoisie in quotes, shows me how little you actually know about Marxism.
Who cares? Are you really going to go as far as flaunt a your cultural capitol, gatekeep, and shame me for trying to have an honest conversation about what people should be expected to do if AI takes over everything? I’m here to learn, not to get dogpiled for having real concerns about this subject and the OP. I don’t like AI, as I understand the basis of socialism it is to allievate the burdens of capitalism. And it goes beyond production. You have done nothing but insult me and honestly make no sense in any of your arguments. I don’t feel any more inspired to hear more about your idea of Marxism and I’m not the only one.
I know about art and that is the topic at hand.