Generative AI closes off a better future — Ursula Le Guin said we must be able to imagine freedom. AI traps us in the past.

ChatGPT cannot imagine freedom or alternatives; it can only present you with plagiarized mash-ups of the data it’s been trained on. So, if generative AI tools begin to form the foundation of creative works and even more of the other writing and visualizing we do, it will further narrow the possibilities on offer to us. Just as previous waves of digital tech were used to deskill workers and defang smaller competitors, the adoption of even more AI tools has the side effect of further disempowering workers and giving management even further control over our cultural stories.

As Le Guin continued her speech, she touched on this very point. “The profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art,” she explained. “We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable — but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words.” That’s exactly why billionaires in the tech industry and beyond are so interested in further curtailing how our words can be used to help fuel that resistance, which would inevitably place them in the line of fire.

[…]

The stories and artworks that resonate with us are inspired by the life experiences of artists who made them. A computer can never capture a similar essence. Le Guin asserted that to face the challenging times ahead, we’ll need “writers who can remember freedom — poets, visionaries — realists of a larger reality.” Generative AI seems part of a wider plan by the most powerful people in the world to head that off, and to trap us in a world hurtling toward oblivion as long as they can hold onto their influence for a little longer.

As Le Guin said, creating art and producing commodities are two distinct acts. For companies, generative AI is a great way to produce even more cheap commodities to keep the cycle of capitalism going. It’s great for them, but horrible for us. It’s our responsibility to challenge the technology and the business model behind it, and to ensure we can still imagine a better tomorrow.

keepthepace,

I am tired of correcting the same misconceptions and I love Le Guin too much to give her crap about it. I’ll just make general remarks.

The reason we all (AI researchers and engineers) are excited about LLMs is not that they can mash up and merge existing piece of work. It is because they can recognize very high level abstraction patterns, understand these, merge them with others and create coherent outputs based on these new patterns.

Even if fed only sexist and capitalist literature, it is capable of imagining things that go beyond that. It can extrapolate the notion of freedom expressed by a rich male narrator into freedom for poor women. I would argue that this is very similar to the way human authors explore new horizons: adapt known patterns to new objects. New patterns are learned from our dataset. Right now for LLMs it is only text, but 2024 is looking like it will be the year of the AI-enhanced humanoid robot. Get ready for a ton of subjective experience datasets.

Yes, we can use it to produce unimaginative works mimicking those produced by the entertainment “industry”. Fun fact: these models will soon run on your local machines (for images they already do) and these industries will be destroyed by the post-scarcity the generative model actually cause.

The great surprise of the AI revolution is that it is barely capitalistic, despite what the dystopians say. Companies communicate a lot about their private models, but in a scenario that no SciFi author would have dreamed, it turns out that research in the field is pretty open and that open source models are on the tail of private ones.

Software is probably the domain that is the most advanced in terms of post-capitalism: open source provides non capitalistic post-scarcity, and AI spawns from this domain.

People should not be blind to this fundamental aspect of the field.

GuilhermePelayo,

Nice and informed comment. Completely agree, specially with the part about software being the domain most advanced in terms of post capitalistic post scarcity.

keepthepace,

Thanks!

Yes, I am surprised it is not discussed more in the anti-capitalist discussions. Software, with its null marginal cost, is a laboratory of post-scarcity. The fediverse is kind of the next frontier of it.

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

It's been possible to run useful LLMs on your own local machines for quite a while already. They're not up to the general level of competence as the big commercial LLMs like ChatGPT, but they have certain niches where they excel - hobbyist LLMs usually don't have the sorts of "no mean things! no sexy things!" fetters that encumber the commercial LLMs, for example. And they're trainable so you can customize their knowledge and style more than you can with the commercial ones.

I'm looking forward to them becoming more user-friendly, though. Takes a lot of technical know-how to get these things working currently.

keepthepace,

Working on that. I have found this interface to be pretty straightforward.

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

There's also KoboldAI.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Even if fed only sexist and capitalist literature, it is capable of imagining things that go beyond that. It can extrapolate the notion of freedom expressed by a rich male narrator into freedom for poor women.

I don’t think this is true at all…

What does “imagining things that go on beyond that” mean? Simply swapping out hierarchical control from men to women, isn’t creating or “imagining” a completely different story model.

If you fed it nothing but sexist and capitalist lit then in all likelihood it will just give you more sexist lit, or alternatively lit that is specifically anti sexist/capitalist.

keepthepace,

Give it an example of an oppression and of people freeing from oppression. It can they apply that pattern to different oppressions even without having seen it applied there before.

Of course you need to prompt for it, e.g. by saying “Spot oppression in places we don’t label it as such and imagine new narratives of liberation from these oppressions”. LLMs are not given agency, not really out of technical difficulty but mostly to not freak people out too much. But the fact that this capability exists in such a simple model is just mind blowing.

If you fed it nothing but sexist and capitalist lit then in all likelihood it will just give you more sexist lit, or alternatively lit that is specifically anti sexist/capitalist.

Well that’s the surprising thing. You can prompt it for things it has never encountered. You can make it generate left-handed supremacist leaflets or let it produce arguments in favor of stuffing tofu in your ears. You can make it generate Shakespearian gay romance or theological arguments for the sainthood of Obiwan Kenobi.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Give it an example of an oppression and of people freeing from oppression.

Right, but this is fascist literature you are theoretically inputting. I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of good examples of celebrating people escaping oppression.

Of course you need to prompt for it, e.g. by saying "Spot oppression in places we don’t label it as such

If you are inputting solely fascist propaganda… the machines definition of what oppression means is going to be inherently different than our understanding. Ideological definitions like freedom and oppression require historical and cultural context that the machine has no access to. And if they are receiving any context from your inputted information, it’s going to be influenced by the compilation of writers.

Well that’s the surprising thing. You can prompt it for things it has never encountered.

What do you mean by “encountered”? It can’t just imagine the correct definition of a word it has no context about.

You can make it generate Shakespearian gay romance or theological arguments for the sainthood of Obiwan Kenobi.

Because you have fed it countless amounts of reference points and context about those subjects. If you fed it nothing but literature written by neo nazi, it’s not going to have a clue who Shakespeare is.

keepthepace,

I would argue that “fascist literature” is a contradiction of terms. I never mentionned fascism and think it is a trivialisation of the term to equate sexist capitalism with it. I was thinking about things like Heinlein style scifi, pretty male centric, pretty pro-capitalist but one of the stories resolve around a former slave helping break a slave ring.

Ideological definitions like freedom and oppression require historical and cultural context that the machine has no access to. And if they are receiving any context from your inputted information, it’s going to be influenced by the compilation of writers.

Well, yes, like a human author I would argue. A human author who lived all his life in an authoritarian state would have a very limited and naive understanding of what freedom or fight for freedom could be.

What do you mean by “encountered”? It can’t just imagine the correct definition of a word it has no context about.

I mean “that is present in its training dataset”. I was talking about non-encountered combinations. Indeed, it can’t know the definition of new word, but if you provide a definition of it, it will be able to talk about it and imagine things about it. It it never encountered unicorn in its dataset, describe it as horses with a single horn on the forehead and magical powers and it will have no problem writing things about them.

Because you have fed it countless amounts of reference points and context about those subjects. If you fed it nothing but literature written by neo nazi, it’s not going to have a clue who Shakespeare is.

Obviously. Neither could a human. But I am pretty sure there is no theological argument for Obiwan Kenobi’s sainthood in its dataset. It knows about sainthood, it knows about starwars, and the interesting thing is that it knows how to combine it.

TranscendentalEmpire,

would argue that “fascist literature” is a contradiction of terms. I never mentionned fascism and think it is a trivialisation of the term to equate sexist capitalism with it. I

I don’t see how fascist literature is a contradictions of terms… fascist have famously written quite a few books.

Nor do I really think it trivializes fascism to conflate sexist capitalist books as fascist literature. The vast majority of media that fascist regimes utilized as propaganda were just American movies and literature that had undertones of sexism, capitalism, and like almost all fictional literature, a protagonist that had the ability solve all the books problems.

Heinlein style scifi, pretty male centric, pretty pro-capitalist but one of the stories resolve around a former slave helping break a slave ring.

Heinlein isn’t particularly pro capitalist or male centric, especially for it’s time… he was actually kinda famous for writing about strong female characters that bucked the social and sexual norms for the times. The only “capitalist” book he really wrote was the moon is a harsh mistress, and that had more to do with governments than markets.

Well, yes, like a human author I would argue. A human author who lived all his life in an authoritarian state would have a very limited and naive understanding of what freedom or fight for freedom could be.

Right, but you didn’t claim that a human who had never been exposed to freedom could write a book that accurately portrays freedom…

It it never encountered unicorn in its dataset, describe it as horses with a single horn on the forehead and magical powers and it will have no problem writing things about them.

Lol, okay. That’s quite a bit different than what your original claim may lead people to believe.

Obviously. Neither could a human. But I am pretty sure there is no theological argument for Obiwan Kenobi’s sainthood in its dataset. It knows about sainthood, it knows about starwars, and the interesting thing is that it knows how to combine it.

Again, you are utilizing language that is not really an accurate depiction of what’s happening. It’s not making a theological argument, it doesn’t “know” that it is deifying a fictional character.

There are reference points to obiwan, people like obiwan, people think he’s great, people say he looks like a religious character other people like, people like saints. It’s not analyzing the characters and making new connections no one has ever thought about, it’s just reflecting data and popular connection others have already inferred.

I think people tend to drape machine learning in the ornamentation of human consciousness, but it’s just buying into your own marketing. I think it’s great for pattern recognition, but to think it’s going to create meaningful art that isn’t just plagiarism is naive. Just as naive as to think that it’s possible to be a tool of leftist ideology .

It’s what the capitalist have wanted since slavery became illegal, a worker that they don’t have to pay that can ape a human like connectivity. How are the workers going to seize the means of production if the workers can literally be programmed?

keepthepace,

It’s what the capitalist have wanted since slavery became illegal, a worker that they don’t have to pay that can ape a human like connectivity. How are the workers going to seize the means of production if the workers can literally be programmed?

What would you need to “seize” if the models are open source and purely software? You need some machines, but GPUs are cheap compared to industrial equipment. That precise battle has been won without ever being fought.

TranscendentalEmpire,

What would you need to “seize” if the models are open source and purely software?

That’s my entire point… they are attempting to replace writers, who are currently the producers of the wealth in the current industry. By going on strike they can collectively demand more control of how the profit is distributed.

That precise battle has been won without ever being fought.

How have you won anything? You just theoretically erased thousands of jobs. You aren’t replacing the logistical system required to profit from the writing, you aren’t doing anything for the worker class but stealing food from their mouths.

How does replacing workers with machines equate to a leftist win? We’ve automated tons of industries, how has that worked out for the worker or unions?

keepthepace,

Simple: we need to move towards a post-labor society and have some form of universal basic income.

I think that big studios are on a timer. Generative AI for videos is getting better and better and manages to follow a script now. In 5 years, you won’t shoot movies anymore, you will generate them and it will stop being a business, it will get back to being an art form and a culture unhindered with the copyright silliness that wasted the cultural output of the last century.

Yes, the very people immediately replaced by AIs are going to suffer. Note however an interesting fact: this was an unintentional side effect of the tech. AI was not developed by big studios with the aim of displacing writers (such a proposal would have been laughable 2 years ago). Just like 2D artists and soon 3D artists and an increasing number of webdevs, this is just a set of skills that suddenly became available in improving models.

I understand their anger, but their strike is a losing proposition and people who promoting it are selling them false hope. More jobs will be replaced that way (we all thought truck drivers would go away before artists though), we need to prepare for this transition.

What we need to defend is our income, not our job. Society will need less and less jobs. We can let capitalism reorganize it blindly through the genocidal hand of market or we can understand the causes of the change and shape it into the type of society we want.

TranscendentalEmpire,

Simple: we need to move towards a post-labor society and have some form of universal basic income.

Lol, how do we do that? Since we’re clearly not anywhere close to that, how does this theoretical help us? Are we going to stop capitalist from utilizing AI to replace workers until we’re a post scarcity society?

think that big studios are on a timer. Generative AI for videos is getting better and better and manages to follow a script now. In 5 years, you won’t shoot movies anymore, you will generate them and it will stop being a business, it will get back to being an art form and a culture unhindered with the copyright silliness that wasted the cultural output of the last century.

I think that’s a tremendously naive sentiment… First of all, I don’t think there’s anyone in AI that believes it will replace multimillion dollar film industries in 5 years. Secondly, I think it’s silly to believe people won’t find a way to capitalize automated labour to the detriment of the working class.

understand their anger, but their strike is a losing proposition and people who promoting it are selling them false hope. More jobs will be replaced that way (we all thought truck drivers would go away before artists though), we need to prepare for this transition.

Lol, you really think that AI is creating art that is sellable? It can barely put together a comprehensible short article. Even in theory, it’s not creating anything new, it’s just IP theft.

What we need to defend is our income, not our job. Society will need less and less jobs. We can let capitalism reorganize it blindly through the genocidal hand of market or we can understand the causes of the change and shape it into the type of society we want.

I think you are misunderstanding that we don’t really have a say in any of that unless we have a say over the means of production. Capitalist don’t care about what’s good for the people, they care about their portfolios. The only progress we make we create by strangling the means of production from them. If you don’t have leverage over the controlling class, they don’t care about you.

Your ideological statements lead me to believe that you are conflating leftism with effective altruism. Which is basically what all tech bros have adopted as a means to justify their self proclaims egalitarianism while also making billions. You can’t use technology to circumvent supporting labour movements.

keepthepace,

Ah yes, proletariat revolution first, then every problem will be solved by the wisdom of the working class. I know this meme.

Assuming you live in the US good luck in a country where the biggest mob waves the confederacy flag and where actual left-wing parties are almost inexistant.

There will be a majority in favor of basic income before there is enough support for the proletariat revolution. And I make the same statement in France where riots are frequent, antifa groups actually exist, and there are openly revolutionary organizations.

I have now known 3 generations that wait for the Grand Soir. In the meantime, pragmatic people who contribute to the cooperative economy create post-capitalist pockets right now and open source movements are the biggest post-scarcity experiment out there. But yeah, just dismiss that as siliconvalley tech-broism. We had campaigns called “degooglising the net” but surely it must mean we are in bed with the GAFAM.

You can’t use technology to circumvent supporting labour movements.

What does this even mean? Arguing that workers should receive income even where their job is automated is not support? What do you want exactly? That we pretend that automatable jobs are not? That we force ourselves to carve bullshit jobs to justify our rights to exist?

TranscendentalEmpire,

yes, proletariat revolution first, then every problem will be solved by the wisdom of the working class. I know this meme.

Lol, do you think the people in power will just decide to give up power and allow us to enter post scarcity without a fight?

Assuming you live in the US good luck in a country where the biggest mob waves the confederacy flag and where actual left-wing parties are almost inexistant.

And what makes you assume that these are the conditions to automatically transition to a post scarcity society?

There will be a majority in favor of basic income before there is enough support for the proletariat revolution. And I make the same statement in France where riots are frequent, antifa groups actually exist, and there are openly revolutionary organizations.

Do you honestly think capitalist governments care what a majority of people want?

In the meantime, pragmatic people who contribute to the cooperative economy create post-capitalist pockets right now and open source

My dude, how are you claiming that it’s a post-capitalist pocket? Unless these open source companies are being run by a single guy, or have organized their businesses as a workers collective… you’re still participating in capitalism. The only difference is the way you license your service.

But yeah, just dismiss that as siliconvalley tech-broism. We had campaigns called “degooglising the net” but surely it must mean we are in bed with the GAFAM.

Ahh so competiting with Google is now leftism…

Arguing that workers should receive income even where their job is automated is not support?

No… emphatically no. You are arguing that workers should receive a universal income, not that workers will receive a universal income. What you are arguing will happen is that they will loose their jobs. You get to do what you want, and then people loose their jobs, then you get to claim, “we’ll, I said they should get a universal income”.

You can’t just automate a small aspect of the economy and expect economic and governmental hierarchical structures that are a hundred years old to change over night. Just because we have the ability to enter post scarcity, doesn’t mean that we will. We produce more than enough food to feed the world, we still choose to allow people to starve.

Your definition of post capitalism, is just capitalism with less IP control. It’s not changing what class controls the means of production, which means it’s still capitalism.

keepthepace,

do you think the people in power will just decide to give up power and allow us to enter post scarcity without a fight?

Ah yes, how could I forget the trench warfare of the great linux-IBM war that brought post-scarcity to the OS world. How could I dismiss the terrible bombing campaign Microsoft led against Mozilla in the Internet Browsers Wars. Even now, LAION barely holds because of its in-depth network of anti-tank ditches.

My dude, how are you claiming that it’s a post-capitalist pocket? Unless these open source companies are being run by a single guy, or have organized their businesses as a workers collective… you’re still participating in capitalism.

I am actually talking about workers-owned collectives, which exist without receiving violent opposition. They do receive some opposition, in tribunals, in lobbying, but the corporate world, yes, will relinquish control and fade into irrelevance without more violence than that. It has in several fields as well. Peaceful change happens all the time.

Most open source development is not made by workers collective though. A lot is make non-profit, some are organized as foundations (Mozilla for instance) and some is made by regular for-profit capitalist companies that make their money out of service around the post-scarce open source they depend on, so they help maintain it. This is a transitional model where non-capitalist entities collaborate with capitalist ones into expanding the areas of post-scarcity.

As for automation: most works will be automatable in the next 20 years. This is not a leftist or a rightist position, this is a fact. The position is how we propose to react to it. My proposal is that we stop correlating work with the right to live a decent life. It can be done through basic income though there are many other ways to achieve similar result: expand greatly the “insertion income” (we have something like a very symbolic basic income in France but it is small and time limited), expand unemployement benefits, students pension and lower progressively retirement age as society gets more and more automated. These all are things that happened in the past with left wing government. Expanding the social net is a politically acceptable, realistic and moderate proposal.

What is your proposal to compensate the automation of work? Violent uprising is not a proposal, it is a mean to implement a proposal.

What do you, Ô guardian of leftism, consider to be the acceptable proposal to workers whose jobs can be made 20x faster at a tenth of the cost by a machine?

TranscendentalEmpire,

yes, how could I forget the trench warfare of the great linux-IBM war that brought post-scarcity to the OS world. How could I dismiss the terrible bombing campaign Microsoft led against Mozilla in the Internet Browsers Wars. Even now, LAION barely holds because of its in-depth network of anti-tank ditches.

I don’t think you understand what post scarcity is … it’s not something that you can accomplish with efficiency in one arena of commerce. The whole point of post scarcity is to eliminate the competition that drives historic materialism.

post-scarce open source they depend on, so they help maintain it. This is a transitional model where non-capitalist entities collaborate with capitalist ones into expanding the areas of post-scarcity.

Again, you cannot create post scarcity by cooperating with capitalism. Capitalism is based on profiting off of scarcity or artificial scarcity.

As for automation: most works will be automatable in the next 20 years. This is not a leftist or a rightist position, this is a fact.

Lol, they’ve been saying that for the last 20 years… I think you are reading too much news from silicon valley (marketing).

What is your proposal to compensate the automation of work?

Tbh I think we’re probably running out of time to do anything meaningful. Climate change is going to put pressure on governments to secure borders and capture resources. My guess is that most democratic governments are going to slide into militaristic fascism, fueled by increased competition between monopolistic corporations. To think technology like AI won’t be used to lubricate this transition, and will instead be used to create “electronic post scarcity” is baffling toe.

iolent uprising is not a proposal, it is a mean to implement a proposal

I think that’s a bit pedantic… I could say that thinking up a policy for UBI is not a proposal, but a means to implement a proposal.

consider to be the acceptable proposal to workers whose jobs can be made 20x faster at a tenth of the cost by a machine?

If you don’t change the hierarchy of production and distribution, who exactly is this automation helping? You are being more efficient, but where is the benefit of that efficiency going to? Ah yes the owners…

So to you leftism is about creating more wealth for the owning class and creating less ways to distribute that profit to the worker class. Efficiency that does not benefit the worker, doesn’t not count as leftism. It’s pretty simple…

UBI is just a neoliberal ploy to pacify the population, you will get the bare minimum of social care while the wealthy seize the vast majority of the capital. It’s just like social security in the US or the retirement age in France. As soon as the capitalist thinks it’s in the way of growth, they will defund or minimize its effectiveness instead of increasing taxation to accommodate it.

keepthepace,

So… many things to answer and correct there. Let me focus on two here (and please refrain to assume things about me that are hilariously incorrect. Calling everyone with a tech education a silicon valley chill is not giving you any favor)

First post-scaricity. You are denying that post-scarcity is happening right now in some fields because it is contrary to your model of the world. That’s not better than these conservatives who deny renewable energies can be profitable where they actually are measurably so.

Post-scarcity has been achieved in the domain of software, most of the internet runs on a free software stack, this is a situation that has been opposed by de-facto monopolies that existed there before. We have won. There was no physical violence. There were lawsuits, there was lobbying, there were shady actions, but nothing that required storming Microsoft Redmond’s HQ to free our comrades.

Please tell me how open source software is not a post-scarce field. Yes, regular companies use or even develop open source software because they found a business model that does not rely on scracity of the software (usually based around service, or hosting). Like it or not (and you are right to hate the exploitive part of it) but this is capitalist and non-capitalist entities COLLABORATING.

Then, revolution. You find “pedantic” to ask what is the purpose of revolution? The power structures you want to put into place afterwards? Isn’t that the only question that matters? I am asking, because workers-owned collective exist, some of them are big and they are already well integrated in the current economic system. Without having to storm anything or overthrow structures.

So my question is how the structures you want to implement would be different from what we have right now in workers-owned collectives and what prevents them today from existing?

I’ll let all the other big disagreements I have in your message out for now, for the sake of brievity.

TranscendentalEmpire,

First post-scaricity. You are denying that post-scarcity is happening right now in some fields because it is contrary to your model of the world.

I’m saying that your interpretation of post-scarcity is either flawed, or an interpretation so far from the original meaning that it is no longer useful for discord.

Post scarcity in it’s most basic definition is a theoretical economic scenario where most goods can be produced in an abundance with little to no human input. This does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services

Your interpretation doesn’t meet the basic definition of post scarcity. Simply because “most of the internet runs on a free software stack” doesn’t mean anything you are doing is helping people get the goods they require to survive.

Now we can get the leftist interpretation of post-scarcity. Simply because an open source software completes with a monopoly, doesn’t mean you’ve created post-scarcity. Microsoft still exist, it’s still undeniably a monopoly, it’s still profiting off of aspects of the open source software that replaced its licensing monopoly. You haven’t changed the hierarchy of of power, nor do you have any more control over the distribution of capital.

You find “pedantic” to ask what is the purpose of revolution?

No, I said the way you predicated a retort was pedantic. This whole line of questioning is an attempt to substantiate a fallacy of false dichotomy. I don’t have to have a better plan of action to criticize a false claim.

how the structures you want to implement would be different from what we have right now in workers-owned collectives and what prevents them today from existing?

Again, I think you keep trying to hyperfocus on a few worker collectives in a service industry that has nothing to do with fulfilling peoples material needs. We were discussing AI that was according to you going to replace artist… I don’t see how a couple unnamed software workers collectives are really going to help artist meet their material needs in the foreseeable future, nor do I really see how it pertains to the original argument.

I’ll let all the other big disagreements I have in your message out for now, for the sake of brievity.

Ahh yes, I’ll allow us to stop talking about the argument in hand. Look at this non sequitar instead…

keepthepace, (edited )

I give up. I can’t believe this is an argument made in good faith. If it is, I think I will need to provide you with definitions of too many notions for it to ever be a worthwhile effort and literally none of my retorts and questions get addressed. The confidence with which you push misconceptions makes me really sad that you promote my political side.

Please inform yourself better on the various subjects touched. About free software, about workers-own cooperatives today (e.g. Mondragon), about communes existing within the capitalist system today (e.g. Longo Maï), read a bit more on post-scarcity and really, really, please stop telling people that the progress they promote is useless unless we abolish capitalism first. That meme is tiring and hurting. With that mindset we would never have had women’s right or the civil rights movement.

TranscendentalEmpire,

can’t believe this is an argument made in good faith. If it is, I think I will need to provide you with definitions of too many notions for it to ever be a worthwhile effort and literally none of my retorts and questions get addressed.

I’m the only person who’s given an actual definition which you have consistently ignored… you’re the one who was making the fantastical claims about the advancement of AI and how it can be used as a tool for leftist. I am negating those claims.

The confidence with which you push misconceptions makes me really sad that you promote my political side.

Right back at ya bud… except I don’t actually think you’re promoting leftism, at least any theory I’ve encountered. Your ideology seems to be pretty centered around a specific field of commerce. A lot of it actually just sounds like you want to liberalize(Locke) the markets.

workers-own cooperatives today (e.g. Mondragon),

Yes, mondragod is a cooperative, but it’s still labeled as a capitalist enterprise. Even if it’s completely owned by the workers, it still doesn’t have any relationship with the state.

Longo Maï

Longo Mai is only possible because of its codependency on capital. It was established by funding raising and persist to do so for around half of it budget. It’s also a well recognized as a libertarian hub, not leftist.

read a bit more on post-scarcity

Really rich coming from someone who didn’t even try to define their understanding of it when provided with a basic definition.

please stop telling people that the progress they promote is useless unless we abolish capitalism first.

Lol, you were gloating over putting people out of work with ai and claiming it was leftist progress. I was getting tech bro effective altruism vibes from you, but now I’m getting more of a failed tech bro an-cap vibe…

With that mindset we would never have had women’s right or the civil rights movement.

And your mindset is of the type of person who thinks all sexism and racism magically disappeared afterwards.

schmorpel,

If you want to create really good art that is as close as it can be to the truth or your heart, you cannot be too caught up in having to earn enough for food and shelter. That is what gets more difficult for more people in a hyper capitalist society.

It’s not so much that tech is used to create art. I don’t mind CGI, AI-generated stuff, drum computers … all can be used to create great art.

But very little great art is created these days. Every movie seems the Xth derivative of some superhero shit. Almost like a super-in-your-face-hero-narrative pushed to the extreme. There is a distinct lack of new narratives in mainstream, it all seems so dystopianly tired and worn-out.

Or is the better content just hard to find between all the junk that’s out there? I don’t think the tech is directly responsible, but the artist being forced into thinking of himself as the creator of a product that has to satisfy n people, or alternatively having to be the creator of a product of his liking that might never be completed as the artist has to work to finance his passion.

What the use of complex tech can to some people: it discourages them from creating earnest art with simpler means, because they believe it can’t complete with the ‘real’ or the ‘big’ stuff. These days I kind of force myself to draw with pencils and play acoustic instruments just to get back to something really simple and screen-less, and it has been a delight, but I’ve also gotten stuck in some ‘got-to-buy-more-to-get-better’ kind of loop in art and hobbies. Some feel the pressure to ‘generate enough content’ so as to not be drowned out by faster creators, but that turns art into a race and is rather silly.

A passionate and well cared for artist can create great art using a stick and/or AI, anyways, and the art just happens to take the time it needs to be created. We could do with a little less capitalism to take the pressure of the artist.

MrBlueSkies,

Sorry Ursula - you are the past now.

JacobCoffinWrites,
@JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net avatar

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. I think the way I make my photobashes is closer to how people think AI works than the AI actually is. The nature of a photobash is that everything has been cut from photographs, I make my art by cutting up other people’s art (if you consider free textures, stock photos, and home depot, lowes, and amazon advertisements to be art, though I often do grab bits and pieces from farther afield than that) and I’ve kind of been expecting some backlash for awhile now, especially over on the solarpunk subreddit where they really seem to hate AI for the ‘plagiarism machine’ reasons. I think some folks who make collages really enjoy the bits of context the different elements bring with them, but I’m kind of the opposite. I like the way this process strips the bits and pieces of their original context and remixes them into something new. I feel like this is how I’ve always made things, even writing. Nothing is spun into existence out of thin air. I pull concepts, plot beats, character traits and more out of stuff I love, or often stuff that I think had potential but missed the mark, and jam it together into something new.

Maybe because of that, or because I never had it make the whole scene, AI never felt like a huge departure from my processes, just another tool in the toolbox. If it’s borrowing styles, rules of design, or color pallets, at least it’s not cutting the source up directly. I’ve used a friend’s midjournybot a few times in the photobashes, to generate bits and pieces I couldn’t find or wouldn’t use, mostly for in-world artwork. I think it’s pretty amazing, the things it comes up with, and though I wouldn’t use it to generate a whole scene because it wouldn’t get the details right, it’s really useful when I want to include a type of art in a scene but don’t have specific design in mind. I’ve had it make wood panels carved with leaves and stained glass windows for the kitchen, and a spraypaint mural and a mandala pattern for the parking garage scene. I take what it makes, cut it up, transform it as necessary, and layer it into the scene. I think I mostly use it for in-world art because, like I said, I like the way this process cuts bits out of one picture and gives them a new job in a new picture. But I can’t do that with artwork – to include a carving or a stained glass window would be to include the whole thing, rather than just a piece of it, and dropping the whole thing into a new context feels a lot more like actual theft, or like it could change the original in some way. I don’t know.

I guess my point is that imagination has always felt like this to me? And that people will keep imagining better futures, no matter what tools they coexist with? Heck I’m making my depictions of the future entirely out of photographs of things that exist now. I don’t doubt that there are billionaires and tech types who’d love to remove the artists from the production of art, in order to gain full control over the messages it conveys. But there’s already plenty of lowest-common-denominator mass-consumption art being cranked out by their companies. And they’ll use their money to produce dross or propaganda whether there are other humans in the loop or not. Like a tattoo artist told me once, ‘some days you make art, some days you make rent.’

(I don’t honestly know if this will reduce the motivation for people to learn to draw in order to get the scenes in their heads out where people can see them, I’ve been using image manipulation tools since I was a kid, but I still started teaching myself to draw in college.)

I don’t love when the arguments against AI still treat art like a product, though I acknowledge that in the world we live in, everything is a product. It just feels like another flavor of the kind of capitalist thinking that treats artists as replaceable parts. At the same time, I understand that people need money to survive and to keep learning and improving so they can put art they love out in the world. I know I’m biased because my career isn’t on the line here. I’ve got the luxury of doing this for free, and releasing it for free because I’m not dependent it for an income. I can make the solarpunk photobashes CC-BY because there’s no opportunity cost there, and it might help them to spread around and influence the overall messaging of solarpunk art and the first impressions people get of the genre. I’ve made sure not to tag it in any way that prevents AI from consuming it, because if I can infect its perception of solarpunk so the things it makes include values like reuse, so much the better.

schmorpel,

I mean, without a prompt no AI does anything. There always has to be a human on the other end of every tool, be it a stick or an AI. Difference would be whether there’s a guy standing behind me telling me where to point the stick or AI, or if it’s my own decision, or the decision of the group affected by stick/AI.

RoboGroMo,

‘previous waves of digital tech were used to deskill workers and defang smaller companies’ just isn’t even close to true, it’s far easier to access learning resources, tools, and a final market for your product or skills than it ever has been.

I hate when people look back and say things like ‘technology took away jobs’ when the reality is it’s what ended the brutal privation and poverty as described in works like Jude the Obscure and Ragged Trousered Philanthropists - imagine how different Jude or Robert Tressell’s lives would have been with access to the educational and community organisation resources we all take for granted. Neither of those people had the slightest chance to reach their potential and that was the reality of working class life in those eras, today we all have free access to almost endless learning resources on any subject - we have for many things the tools freely available or at cost thanks to open source; coding, digital art, writing, publishing, film-making… If Joel Haver had been born Robert Tressell or Jude the Obscure then he’d certainly have never made a movie (anachronism aside) but today he and a million other normal people from average lives are able to create art and express themselves freely.

If anything tech has given fangs to little companies and independent creators, i’ve watched more Joel Haver movies than Marvel movies - one guy and his friends using hobby grade gear, home computers and a lot of passion is enough to make something that people all over the world can enjoy - tech has been fantastic for creators.

and when creators are able to use AI tools to make that even easier and to increase the scope of their creations it’ll be the big companies that suffer not the small creative groups full of passion, ideas and strong connection to the world they live in.

HorseRabbit,

Pretty big to assume humans are capable of genuinely new thought. Seems to me people also just modify and regurgitate shit they heard other people say.

Muffi,

If I’d want any one person to design our future, it would have to be Le Guin. She was such a great person, and her stories are those rare ones that expand both your mind and your heart.

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

She seems to have some pretty big misunderstandings of how generative AI works so I think I'd disqualify her from designing our future on that basis alone.

Hotchpotch,

She’s been dead more than 5 years, this text is from 2014.

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

That certainly doesn't help her case.

Zehzin,
@Zehzin@lemmy.world avatar

The future would have so many dragons in it you don’t even know

FaceDeer,
FaceDeer avatar

Once again, the "plagiarism machine" misunderstanding of how LLMs operate. It's simply not true. They don't "mash up" their training material any more than a human "mashes up" their training material. They learn patterns from their training material. Is a human author who writes yet another round of the Hero's Journey creating a "plagiarized mash-up" of past stories? When a poet writes yet another sonnet, are they just aping past poems they've seen?

And even if it were so, complaints like these are self-contradictory. If LLM output really is just boring old retreads of stuff that went before, why are they a "threat" to skilled human authors who can produce new material? If those human authors really are inherently better than the LLMs, what's the big deal? It's not like it's a new thing for there to be content farms and run-of-the-mill stories churned out en mass. Creative authors have always had to compete with that kind of thing. Nobody's "curtailing" them, they're just competing with them. Go ahead and compete right back.

poVoq,
@poVoq@slrpnk.net avatar

I generally agree on your stance regarding AI (in the end it is another tool for human artist to use), but the problem with competition as you describe is that it competes on price with the lower-entry level jobs artists might find. Thus in turn there is little opportunity for human artists left to learn on the job and reach levels surpassing AI generative art.

While of course a lot of art is done not as a commercial endeavour, the prospect of turning it into some sort of income generation (or fame) is usually a motivating factor for artists starting out. With this motivation gone, many will turn to other professions, which in the end is likely a loss for the overall society. A good example for that are comic book artists in France Vs. Germany. In France there is a rich scene of comic book artists with regular publications, mainly because there were some commercial publishers early on and people could aspire to a “career” in being a comic book artist (with varying success…). None of that exists in Germany as far as I know, and the reason is that young people don’t think it is worth learning how to draw comics, and this then becomes a chicken <-> egg problem.

schmorpel,

I don’t believe this is going to happen soon. I was quite worried for a while that my translation job could be killed by ChatGPT, but nothing changed that hadn’t changed already a few years ago with so-called ‘machine translation’. What did that mean for the writer/translator? I had to negotiate a price for a new service with agencies, for ‘machine translation post-editing’ - so I just made it as expensive as translation, fuck you. I’m happy to use machine translation for my work, but choose my own engine and check the work before sending it out there, because there always will be funny mistakes. AI is good enough to save me lots of typing work, but in no way good enough to be left alone to produce any text ready for publishing.

In the case of the writers, who are now AI prompt inventors and AI text pre-publishing editors (here, have a fancy brand-new acronym: ATPE) that would mean: negotiate your price for any jobs (make sure that feeding a prompt into an AI costs the same as writing an article) so you and your family can live comfortably. Don’t let them eat you alive.

poVoq,
@poVoq@slrpnk.net avatar

Well, yes… but that is the momentary insider view.

I was referring to the impression young people have when they decide what they want to invest time in to learn. These views are often highly distorted from reality, as any insider will acknowledge in retrospect, but that doesn’t make them less relevant. Also young people will try to extrapolate at least a few years into the future (time it takes to finish a art degree for example) and AI will likely get better in these years.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@slrpnk.net
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • everett
  • Durango
  • cisconetworking
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • tester
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •