- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://50501.chat/post/177705
Originally Posted By
u/transcendent167At2025-05-02 10:43:07 AM| Source
You must log in or register to comment.
50501 is not an org to be trusted. It’s an arm of the establishment trying to brand itself as an activist group, and there’s tons of problematic reports coming out from their behavior already.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Love that reddit watermark.
Be best OP
Eh that’s all on the mirror comm it’s cross posted from
there’s one African immigrant that should be blamed.
We don’t need AI rubbish for this, someone already made this one:
They made them centuries ago
Removed by mod
Fighting the war class? No, I would better derive all my strength into a useless fight against a technology (which was also made and used by workers, artist are not the only workers in this world). Fighting my own comrades if necessary to accomplish the Butlerian Yihad.
That’s how the left space feels nowadays. We better rebrand socialism to antiAIsm because there’s not much else left on the movement these days.
Removed by mod
I mean, why does it have to be one thing we are trying to not support? People in leftist spaces are trying to root out AI because of its myriad global problems and the way that the industry is akin to a new type of destructive bomb in the class war. Consolidating more wealth and power into the hands of the same technocrat few, poisoning the earth, destroying the livelihood of artists (and entire companies and divisions of workers across multiple industries because bosses are seeing dollar signs), stealing from the many and giving to the few in terms of creativity, it’s set to benefit the VCs…what is there to like about it?
You’re seeing a lot of talk about it because so many people thoughtlessly bought in when the more moral action would be to abstain from using it and insist on spaces that don’t welcome it. It’s not really that we are shifting energy away from more important things. It’s just that people will always say “hey, can we not use this here?” And you’re acting like we’re letting starving orphans starve so we can fight AI.
There’s nothing immoral about AI, and it doesn’t steal from anything. Ideas can’t be owned, and copyright and intellectual property are capitalist nonsense. If you don’t want to share an idea, don’t bring it into the world. Because once you do, it collectively belongs to the human condition.
This is a discussion for governance. It does nobody any good to allow anti ai warriors to start brigading every post containing so called “ai slop”. It’s just a new pointless diversion for keyboard warriors to fight over, accomplishing nothing in the process but derailing any meaningful discussion on the content of the OP. There are other ways to fight back against corporate power, such as making access to genAI technology free and open source, like db0s ai horde project.
Removed by mod
@[email protected] you should’ve given this idiot a perma. I’ve seen them before trolling in similar ways. They’re absolutely not someone who benefits this community.
Most of those claims could be applied to factories, though, or to most technologies.
I don’t like this trend because it’s a conservative approach IMHO. A little primitivist even.
Think of a chair factory. It took jobs away from artisans. It allowed fewer capitalist to further exploit workers and concentrate wealth. It hurt the environment way more than artisan chair making…
But those factories and their workers are the base of the socialist movement. Giving the control of those means of production to the workers. Not destroying them.
If we are talking about destroying the means of production instead of taking control of them in my opinion we are talking about other thing, not socialism.
I worries me because it tilts the objectives that I think have the socialist movement. And it stirs towards other port that I don’t know if I’m comfortable arriving.
100% agree with you - it’s the very definition of reactionary. And in order to buy into the anti-AI argument you have to accept the argument that IP property rights are legitimate, so it’s essentially a neo-liberal position. Property rights are the foundation of right wing politics. That’s why we have copyleft.
And in order to buy into the anti-AI argument you have to accept the argument that IP property rights are legitimate, so it’s essentially a neo-liberal position.
This is also a good argument for outright banning anti-AI trolling like this instance wide. At best it’s a hypocritical position, at worst it goes against our core values.
Removed by mod
Well…yeah. Mass production was a bad turn for the worker. That kinda proves my point. It led to consolidation of wealth and power in the hands of the barons.
And why is saying a technology is a net negative “primitivist?” Haven’t multiple technologies exploited everyone more while operating as spying and brainwash machines? At some point the more advanced technological advancements became more advanced tools of oppression.
Going back to “dumb” technologies and slower communication should very well be a goal for a more truly advanced society. Technology hasn’t set us free, in fact it’s almost exclusively been a tool of the bourgeoisie to further exploit everyone else. To demand more of our time, to steal more of our attention. I agree with pretty much all of what you said. But with just a different inflection in the point.
That’s what I mean. That’s an ideology for sure. But it is not socialism imho. It’s not about controlling the means of production and the technology to give us the advantages that the capitalists have now.
This other ideology is about returning to simpler times, I think. And I’m not about that.
I’m about controlling the factories, not returning to artisans.
Hm. I guess we just see things differently. I’m not subscribing to any idea simply because it falls under any particular label. I think a local system relying on artisans and local foods and the basic needs of those within the community coming first would be amazing. I don’t yearn for industrialized labor. Would a worker-owned system be better than what we have right now? Of course. But I think massive globalization, industrialization, and homogenization has been mostly a net negative, especially for the environment. You and I mostly agree. But if we’re talking utopia, or aspirational system, then smaller scale and localized would be best. I see seizing the means of production as a bandaid on a gaping wound. It helps, but it’s a first step because we need to start somewhere.
Oops, I guess I was a little too spicy. I agree, we don’t need AI, and using the tools of billionaires instead of real art by human artists is at best misguided and at worst actively harming the people you purportedly want to help.
I don’t blame people for reposting it when they don’t realize it’s AI, it can be hard to tell.
it can be hard to tell
occasionally maybe but in this case you can clearly tell from… those things that are supposed to represent dollar bills, no artist would draw them like that
We don’t have an anti-AI art policy in this community, and remember it’s a memes community, not a debating club on the merits or harms of gen-AI.
I wasn’t debating anything? I was agreeing with the comment I replied to. I even specified that I don’t blame people who don’t realize they’re reposting AI content.
I’m autistic and burnt out as shit right now, so sorry if I’m missing something that seems obvious to you.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
We’re friendly to AI art on this instance. If you don’t like that, the door is over there.
You can be friendly to it, but that doesn’t mean you need to like everything. People are friendly to traditional art, doesn’t mean they have to like every single piece of traditional art. People can be into food, but they don’t need to like every single cuisine.
Surely you wouldn’t take the position every single thing on here needs to be GenAI? So in the middle is where we find ourselves.
So be discerning, you owe yourself that at least.
Back to the topic:
This piece is just a bit rubbish and kinda unmemorable. The one I linked did a better job of conveying the same message in a more memorable way IMO, and it seems that opinion is shared by other users of your instance.
so you’re saying you’re friendly towards some AI art, right?
Yeah if it’s actually got artistic merit or is actually interesting in some way sure, life isn’t black & white, so I won’t be either. Cards on the table, I’ve got some issues with how some of the big models have been trained and deployed, but no real issue with the technology itself.
The AI art will be at most as good as the effort going into it, and honestly it’s pretty clear that 90% of the stuff you see posted around at the moment barely had 30 mins spent on the idea.
I can guarantee I’m not gonna like much of any traditional art where it’s clearly low effort and derivative either. The best art does something new and interesting
Ok fair enough. Just wanted to make sure you weren’t doing the whole separate rules for different viewpoints thing.
It’s a memes community not fine art ffs
I was asked a question about AI art so I answered 🤷♂️
Even tried to bring it back on topic
Removed by mod
There’s s small handful of folks who dogmatically hate-post about anything genAI. But the vast majority couldn’t care less. This is in fact a relatively popular post for this community at 106 downvotes and 519 upvotes, and that’s including all the anti-genAI downvote bots, and all the neoliberals. So remind me why ~1/6 of users should dictate to everyone else what the community allows?
And tbh we are never gonna become anti anti-genAI instance. Fuck copyrights and the horse they rode in on (capitalism). You anti-genAI trolls are becoming annoying enough we might need to add a rule about it.
Given my comment got half the upvotes of the post, I could make the argument that half of the people in here agree with me saying it was a bit rubbish.
Like be honest, do you genuinely think the original post is actually more memorable and effective* at conveying the message than the Murdoch one? If you do, that’s fine I guess, art is subjective, but you don’t get to insist everyone else has to love it.
*This is a lefty memes community remember, that’s the important thing
Given my comment got half the upvotes of the post, I could make the argument that half of the people in here agree with me saying it was a bit rubbish.
Not how math works i’m afraid. At most that would be 25%, and a bunch of them probably just like the other meme.
We already had the Murdoch one posted before. Its not a zero sum game.
we might need to add a rule about it.
You should, if you’re going to remove comments you don’t like and break no rules.
This whole debate is off topic for the community. If you want to open a META post about whether we should allow GenAI in this community then just do that, instead of trolling in the comments.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Silence, pro-AI troll
Removed by mod
the instance sidebar and title literally mentions AI. the artwork you see including the favico is AI generated. the head admin runs a genai site providing free image generation.
you don’t have to like it, but nobody here cares if you do. we like genai on this instance.
That may be, but it is not because the admin is open to AI, that we all have to follow that sentiment and welcome AI slop like this one. We all free to have our own opinions. It’s fine if you don’t oppose it, but speak for yourself and not for every user on this instance.
exactly, speak for yourself. this instance is AI friendly, so if you want to try to exclude AI, then do so on some other instance. you don’t get to speak for the rest of the instance with your anti-AI slop.
you’re the one that was generalising for the entire instance, not me
Difference is that @[email protected] is correct. If you want to raise a governance topic on whether we should ban genAI on this instance then please do so instead of trolling in the comment threads.
you implied liking AI artwork made people monsters. that’s a generalization. and a stupid one at that, considering where you are.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No war but class war. All struggle is class struggle. Everything else is FUD and obfuscation.
To be incredibly pedantic (and I love being pedantic), this means that billionaires specifically are the problem, right?
What about medium/large business owners who are far from being billionaires, or small business owners who are trying to get their business off the ground, are they not also problematic given how they still exploit workers to the same degree (or even to a larger degree like small businesses, given how they enjoy a lot of discriminatory legal exemptions worldwide and have to cut labour costs in order to compete better) and are more likely than not to support reactionary rhetoric that divides the working classes further due to their class position?
If only there was a word to encompass all of them
Capitalism? Sure billionaires aren’t the only problem, but in a plutocracy they are a good place to start.
I like calling people by their actions instead of any label. In this situation I would call them Wealth Hoarders. I think that covers the many labels of the rich on varying scales of wealth ownership without singling out any specific group.
I find the over use of labels to be a tool for distraction. It’s easy to argue the definition of a label and ignore the actions that are actually happening. Describing a person’s action leaves less room for debate and returns the focus back on shitty, unacceptable and unwanted behaviour.
As a nice bonus, describing shitty peoples actions and behaviours to them makes them visibly uncomfortable. At least from my experiences.
“Wealth Hoarder” isn’t the best term, given how it could also include decently affluent working class people who have a decent amount of savings. They technically hoard wealth for themselves albeit to a lesser extent, but are these people problematic/part of the problem?
Also, it was a rhetorical question, the answer is bourgeoisie (or capitalists if you don’t want to use 19th century English). It’s definition literally is the employers and people who own and run companies/factories, and rentiers who live off of rent (so landlords). Instead of describing an action, it does something better and describes their material position, what they have.
I personally don’t see any reason to spend time defining labels. The people causing harm don’t even care about the definitions of the labels they use. It’s their actions which are causing harm and and our time is better spent addressing their actions.
If we aren’t spending our time addressing their actions then we are being distracted from the harm they are causing. That benefits and enables their harmful actions while doing nothing positive for us who want a liveable future.
That’s not actually true at all.
They pour all this contrived hatred on poor immigrants because immigrant labour is the cheapest - and most expendable - labour around. And by assigning blame onto poor immigrants they manufacture the necessary consent to sicc more and more state violence onto poor immigrants in order to keep this source of labour as cheap - and thoroughly terrorised - as possible.
That’s why. It’s so damn basic you can find all of it in the second book of the Old Testament.
What if they also bring immigrants so that there are immigrants to blame?
Should we remember that, too?
