I think you’re misunderstanding me, I’m not going against you here.

This is ludditism. Why are so-called marxists acting like this? Why is the automation of every other industry acceptable but theirs is not? It is such a common phenomenon, as exemplified on this thread, one then needs to consider a deeper class phenomenon. They, like others, fear proletarianization. And the argument in defense against this devolves into essentially into two things: proprietorship and the metaphysical idealism of where creativity comes from.

I’m not defending being a Luddite. I have expressed that when I said that fighting against the tech is not feasible. It’s like you said, it’s reactionary and regressive.

I was describing that it is normal for artists to feel that way because their jobs are being taken away. Fighting against AI generated art doesn’t necessarily mean wanting to destroy the tech, like I mentioned, fighting for regulation so that they can secure the bare minimum of rights to not get fucked is one way of doing it. And since by doing that they are also organizing the artists, I see it as the right way to approach this issue. I should also have mentioned that the movement I mentioned earlier, UNIDAD, talked with marxist channels on youtube for example.

I don’t believe this is going against anything you talked about.

The inherent nietzschen elitism in all of this pathetic if one is doing the above while calling self a marxist. Read up and expand one’s horizon and burst the myopic liberal bubble.

I don’t know if you meant this to insult me or not, but I did no such thing to you, so I’ll pretend I didn’t read it.

The quality of output of AI as a defense against the technology in the first place is a poor defense because all that means if it was to reach the level that is acceptable then that means one would be for the technology?

I was being descriptive. It is a fact that current genAI makes images that have issues that need to be corrected by hand. Again I’m not talking against the tech, I’m simply listing the issues it has.

Instead what is inferred by this is that it can never reach an acceptable quality because there is something inherently mystical about human creativity that the machine cannot create.

No, it means that on a technical level it is not on par yet. These models produce hallucinations and wrong outputs. Such things either end up needing to be touched up, which takes work and time to correct, or are used as is, which is currently bad, and as I said, slop.

I have no problem against organising against capital. The solution to the problem of unemployment produced by automation is the equitable redistrubution of resources, the end of the rentier economy, and at the scale of genAI it will end up needing to be a dictatorship against capital. That is the point here.

Yes, and to achieve that you need organization. Workers organizing is a good thing since it shows them that they can fight. It them becomes easier to shows them that the issue is capitalism and that only through organization it can be toppled.

Paid employment could mean retraining under socialism. Remember communism is moneyless, stateless and classless. The aim of society is the socialisation of all labour to free up time to do more leisure including art. People will still want art from humans without AI but there’s a difference between that and the preservation of regression through ludditism to maintain less productive paid labour.

I agree completely.