So, if someone generates an image on their laptop using solar power, using locally run hardware, is it still inherently wrong?
It is not inherently wrong. In your use case I would have less issue with it.
What is the advantage to artisinally fashioning a meme with the same message, when memes are inherently a low-effort, mass-produced form of social expression?
I do not mean to be rude, but I struggle to see how I did not answer this with the “the medium is part of the message” part.
A fancy drawing tells me the person could afford to go to art school. They’re rich, and their experiences won’t match up with mine.
A crude drawing, a diffusion, a movie screenshot, or a comic edit, tells me that person is poor, and just like me, a proletarian. Maybe they have a job and can’t afford to waste time making fancy drawings. That’s the people whose voices I want to hear.
The petit bourgeois are vastly overrepresented on social media, it’s by design, to keep the proletariat down and silenced. Comics that are newly drawn are not memes, but fakes trying to capitalize & rent seek on the success of real memes. A real meme is low effort. The whole idea behind memes is that the oppressed can speak through them. That’s what makes them relatable.
I’m trying to get you to formulate a more materialist answer to opposing AI. The AI question isn’t really settled in Marxism yet, but it’s essentially a tool.
Cowbee, im sorry, but as you yourself say this isn’t a settled question at all. There is some common ground we can agree on, but after that there’s many different assertions one can make, all with decent reasoning behind. Those assertions can then be related to in a few reasonable ways as well.
What we can agree on is that most gen-ai right now is not made with locally run models using renewable energy and the data used to train those models does come from massive data centers. There are people using locally run models and there’s probably someone doing something renewable and there’s some who have their own smaller models that dont rely on data centres, but they are quite far from being the norm.
So unless otherwise stated I assume it is an average user of an average gen-ai.
Then the other assertion is that people find it easier to dismiss AI-slop - easier even than some meme, which means AI slop makes for poor agitprop. At this point there is plenty to be pointed towards going for and against this assertion, so its not settled in any real way. As such, I doubt we are able to come to a consensus at the moment.
Another assertion is the one I made about normalisation. If there is anything that can be solved thru discussion at the moment it might be that, but honestly it isn’t the big reason im against it, since normalisation is only bad under current circumstances in my eyes.
I don’t think normalization is a problem so much as justifying the capitalist nature of it. We can see the difference between how AI is handled in, say, China, vs. how it’s handled under capitalism, so it’s important to actually attack the role AI plays in capitalism, rather than AI itself. The problem is the social relation, not the tool.
It is not inherently wrong. In your use case I would have less issue with it.
I do not mean to be rude, but I struggle to see how I did not answer this with the “the medium is part of the message” part.
Yes, the medium is part of the message:
A fancy drawing tells me the person could afford to go to art school. They’re rich, and their experiences won’t match up with mine.
A crude drawing, a diffusion, a movie screenshot, or a comic edit, tells me that person is poor, and just like me, a proletarian. Maybe they have a job and can’t afford to waste time making fancy drawings. That’s the people whose voices I want to hear.
The petit bourgeois are vastly overrepresented on social media, it’s by design, to keep the proletariat down and silenced. Comics that are newly drawn are not memes, but fakes trying to capitalize & rent seek on the success of real memes. A real meme is low effort. The whole idea behind memes is that the oppressed can speak through them. That’s what makes them relatable.
I’m trying to get you to formulate a more materialist answer to opposing AI. The AI question isn’t really settled in Marxism yet, but it’s essentially a tool.
Cowbee, im sorry, but as you yourself say this isn’t a settled question at all. There is some common ground we can agree on, but after that there’s many different assertions one can make, all with decent reasoning behind. Those assertions can then be related to in a few reasonable ways as well.
What we can agree on is that most gen-ai right now is not made with locally run models using renewable energy and the data used to train those models does come from massive data centers. There are people using locally run models and there’s probably someone doing something renewable and there’s some who have their own smaller models that dont rely on data centres, but they are quite far from being the norm.
So unless otherwise stated I assume it is an average user of an average gen-ai.
Then the other assertion is that people find it easier to dismiss AI-slop - easier even than some meme, which means AI slop makes for poor agitprop. At this point there is plenty to be pointed towards going for and against this assertion, so its not settled in any real way. As such, I doubt we are able to come to a consensus at the moment.
Another assertion is the one I made about normalisation. If there is anything that can be solved thru discussion at the moment it might be that, but honestly it isn’t the big reason im against it, since normalisation is only bad under current circumstances in my eyes.
I don’t think normalization is a problem so much as justifying the capitalist nature of it. We can see the difference between how AI is handled in, say, China, vs. how it’s handled under capitalism, so it’s important to actually attack the role AI plays in capitalism, rather than AI itself. The problem is the social relation, not the tool.
I generally agree.