|
Tree Reformat posted:I think it would be easier to just destroy the Internet's capability to transmit images and video. Let's do that instead, unironically. hmm maybe humankind or conputerkind shouldn't use this poo poo
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Mercrom posted:I don't know what you are even arguing for now. Do you want stricter IP laws or do you want the computer touchers to pretty please stop doing art AI? It would be nice if people chose not to behave like shitheads with this new tool, but that apparently is a level of fantasy beyond the technological singularity/Roco's Basilisk the SV idiots like Musk are making it their life's work to bring about. But I don't know why the binary alternative to that is to fully embrace destroying the artists with no quarter given because it slightly inconveniences Getty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
present an alternative
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 09:50
|
|
|
smarxist posted:present an alternative hire an elite team of biomedical and spiritual professionals to devise an rear end that's actually big enough to break the Internet for real
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
smarxist posted:present an alternative "Don't steal people's poo poo" is a good alternative to stealing their poo poo, imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:01
|
|
|
Well yeah, but you gotta do a lot of work to get to where "don't steal people's poo poo" is the default position the vast majority take without being compelled by other factors
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:02
|
|
|
Why is stealing the default "compelled by other factors" doing a lot of work for free
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:10
|
|
|
I mean stealing when it comes to IP is a very advanced discussion that needs a lot of qualification Even if somehow your art gets copied by the infinity machine you should still be able to do all the art you want and also live a comfortable material life without any debt or compulsive labor. I dunno how to stop people from pouring it into the infinity machine only and preserving the rest of the gross poo poo tho without doing some other gross stuff it doesn't seem much seem like a discussion worth having ya know? the ol' deck chairs on the Titanic
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:13
|
|
|
smarxist posted:it doesn't seem much seem like a discussion worth having ya know? the ol' deck chairs on the Titanic It seems like this is the only argument against being against AI- "no sense fighting it, nothing to be done" because tech is an inexorable thing not guided by any human intervention or decision making. Human participation in and adoption of technology is what makes it change society, not its mere invention or existence- the solution is just not to adopt it. The counter argument that that's not realistic is circular because the people saying it isn't are the same shitheads who feel "compelled" to steal! They're basing it on their own individual lack of compunction and extrapolating it to humanity as a whole. The only sense in which the argument is moot is that whatever makes the fewest people the most money is what will end up happening (in this sense AI will win out), saying "nothing to be done" now is just running interference for the big IP owners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
The way you help a society build principled compunction when it comes to advanced ideas of theft (things that are freely infinitely copyable in a modern world) and protection of art for some conception of "protection" and "art" that works for you, is to make sure they're not living in a broken hellscape of grift and psychotic, empathy eroding brinksmanship that directly undermines the foundational core of their needs pyramid. This is also a great way to get more people making art too  I don't know, all roads lead back to "it seems easier to destroy AI modeling being some sort of theft as a concept by making it impossible to deprive an artist of making a living and doing their art", that ALSO seems to be the easier path to fostering the societal shifts that'd naturally build the compunction you desire as well
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:32
|
|
|
look there's nothing any of us can meaningfully do to stop the bloody gears of the MIC and American Empire so just shut up and support the troops please
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:33
|
|
|
"you're never going to stop COVID, so why bother masking?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:36
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"you're never going to stop COVID, so why bother masking?" that's not what i'm saying at all, i still want the problem solved for the same reasons that the state of being predated upon is bad, but it doesn't seem prudent to waste energy trying to fix it with the machine that somehow always takes all your energy and money from you and never gives you anything you want because it's just one of those vacuum tubes at the bank taking your blood to Jeff Bezos
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 12:40
|
|
|
is there huge transformative potential for Humanity hidden in text-to-image models, waiting to be realized? what would the net benefits be in the best, most egalitarian scenario where professional visual artists all have dignified material and working conditions? certainty higher productivity for firms that use visual art, which reduces socially necessary labor hours. and like maybe it makes digital visual art more accessible as a hobby? it's not like we're talking about penicillin here
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 13:24
|
|
|
It is the compelling force of anarchy in the production of society at large that more and more completely turns the great majority of men into proletarians; and it is the masses of the proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy in production. It is the compelling force of anarchy in social production that turns the limitless perfectibility of machinery under modern industry into a compulsory law by which every individual industrial capitalist must perfect his machinery more and more, under penalty of ruin. But the perfecting of machinery is making human labour superfluous. If the introduction and increase of machinery means the displacement of millions of manual by a few machine-workers, improvement in machinery means the displacement of more and more of the machine-workers themselves. It means, in the last instance, the production of a number of available wage-workers in excess of the average needs of capital, the formation of a complete industrial reserve army, as I called it in 1845, available at the times when industry is working at high pressure, to be cast out upon the street when the inevitable crash comes, a constant dead-weight upon the limbs of the working class in its struggle for existence with capital, a regulator for the keeping of wages down to the low level that suits the interests of capital. Thus it comes about, to quote Marx, that machinery becomes the most powerful weapon in the war of capital against the working class; that the instruments of labour constantly tear the means of subsistence out of the hands of the labourer; that the very product of the worker is turned into an instrument for his subjugation. Thus it comes about that the economising of the instruments of labour becomes at the same time, from the outset, the most reckless waste of labour-power, and robbery based upon the normal conditions under which labour functions; that machinery, the most powerful instrument for shortening labour-time, becomes the most unfailing means for placing every moment of the labourer's time and that of his family at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of expanding the value of his capital. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
ip law is cringe
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:It is the compelling force of anarchy in the production of society at large that more and more completely turns the great majority of men into proletarians; and it is the masses of the proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy in production. It is the compelling force of anarchy in social production that turns the limitless perfectibility of machinery under modern industry into a compulsory law by which every individual industrial capitalist must perfect his machinery more and more, under penalty of ruin. A shadow of resistance followed virtually every new machine rolled out in the Industrial Revolution, and the steam engine was no exception. One morning in March 1791, the Albion Mill – the first ever to be powered solely by steam – went up in smoke after incendiaries set it alight in several places. ‘The satisfaction of the populace was afterwards expressed by songs in the streets of London,’ recorded Farey; up in Birmingham, Boulton & Watt responded by arming staff at the Soho works against attackers. The incident provided a key incentive for the development of fireproof buildings as a form of insurance against plebeian rage.1 Following the Luddite revolt and, more particularly, the rising of the Lancashire handloom weavers in 1826, when more than one thousand power looms were smashed, the British state promulgated a new law to protect machinery. In the fifth paragraph of the Act from 1827, we read: ‘If any Person shall unlawfully and maliciously set fire to any Mine of Coal or Canal Coal, every such Offender shall be guilty of Felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer Death’– and the same punishment would be meted out to anyone who tried to ‘pull down or destroy, or damage with Intent to destroy or render useless, any Steam Engine’.2 At the Lancaster Assizes of March 1831, the judge reminded the audience of the nub of the Act, clearly articulating the priorities of the state: It is declared, that if any persons riotously or tumultuously assemble together for the purpose of destroying any steam engine, or any machinery, fixed or moveable, in any manufactory or mine, or any bridge or waggon way, they are deemed to be guilty of a capital felony. In other words, the critical years of the transition to steam were enclosed behind a law that made wilful damage to a coal mine or an engine punishable by death. These were not mere words. In November 1831, bedlam broke out in Coventry as a mob rushed into a mill equipped with power looms for weaving silk ribbons, destroyed them, set the building on fire and smashed the steam engine with a sledgehammer. Three men were sentenced to death by hanging for the crime. Another way of upholding the Act of 1827 was to acquit defenders of a factory whose bullets had killed besieging rioters, if intention to damage machinery could be established: this happened in Oldham in April 1834. Yet in spite of the draconian law, workers continued to target steam engines. In a strike in Preston in 1831, spinners extinguished the fires under the boilers in several mills, thereby bringing production to a halt, and, in one case, deliberately drove up the speed of the engine until it broke apart.4 What did workers think of steam engines? There are no referendums or opinion polls to consult, but some pieces of evidence allow us to peer into an undergrowth of dissent. Frederick Marryat – seafarer, Royal Navy officer, novelist and editor of The Metropolitan Magazine – wrote a piece on steam as seen by Belgian and British workers and, of course, himself. Before the countenance of the engine, Marryat was rattled: I never can divest myself of the idea that it is possessed of vitality – that it is a living as well as a moving being – and that idea, joined with its immense power, conjures up in my mind that it is some spitting, fizzling, terrific demon, ready and happy to drag us by thousands to destruction. And will this powerful invention prove to mankind a blessing or a curse? – like the fire which Prometheus stole from Heaven to vivify his statue, may it not be followed by the evils of Pandora’s fatal casket? Here fetishism was inverted into steam demonology: the engine as a force of its own, not for good but for evil. Moving its limbs with inherent vigour, a formidable current of energy hidden within its body, the engine appeared to be possessed with an uncanny, almost diabolic power. To Marryat, the dragging to destruction was already well underway. Workers who feared that ‘it would take away their bread’ had reached an ‘instinctive and prophetic truth’ about steam power. An anonymous English gentleman, with whom the writer shared the unpleasant experience of travelling onboard a steamboat, spelled it out: ‘It is a melancholy discovery, sir, this steam’ – not only to seafarers, but a ‘melancholy to those on shore, sir; the engines work while man looks on and starves. Country ruined, sir – people miserable – thrown out of employment.’ All the talk of blessings covered up an undiluted curse, and ‘there is no chance of a return to our former prosperity; unless we can set fire to our coal mines.’ The gentleman perceived Britain as a country turned upside down, shattered to its core, disturbed even in its weather: I ask you whether even the seasons have not changed in our unhappy country; have we not summer with unusual, unexampled heat, and winters without cold; when shall we ever see the mercury down below sixty degrees again? never sir. What is summer but a season of alarm and dread? In these pregnant paragraphs, Marryat connected three prominent sub-tropes of steam demonology: the engine as an agent of despotism (it works ‘while man looks on and starves’), of degradation (the ‘country ruined, sir’) and ultimately of doom (here in the guise of ‘unusual, unexampled heat’). The triad also appeared, of course, in the writings of workers. The decades of the crisis witnessed the emergence of an independent proletarian press, with newspapers such the Owenite New Moral World, widely read by union activists in the mid-1830s. Originally published in its pages, ‘The Factory Child,’ a short story by Douglas Jerrold, painted the grim life of the protagonist with the brush of steam demonology: ‘The engine, like a thing of life, a monstrous something that awakens in the imagination the might and vastness of the pre-Adamite animals; that as though instinct with vitality, works without pause unerringly on, an iron monster with a pulse of steam.’ In a pathetic tone, Jerrold wrote of the working girl as ‘united – fast married – to the giant steam,’ forced to supply her ‘infant bones and sinews for the Moloch engine,’ her ‘fragile limbs opposed by metal valves – the piston against the human heart!’7 The despot in action, shackling the hands and expending their force: some confirmation of the bourgeois view of steam-as-power, but seen from the opposite camp. Demonological sentiments were regularly expressed in the pages of The New Moral World and, so it seems, shared by significant segments of the working class. Baines decried ‘the common prejudice’ that the steam engine ‘is a tyrant power, and a curse to those who work in conjunction with it,’ while The London and Westminster Review cited the view of another group on the brink of downfall: ‘“But,” say the working mechanics, “steam is our enemy; it is the servant of the rich man, and does nothing to serve us, but, on the contrary, throws us out of work by giving its labor at a cheaper rate.” This,’ the Review added, ‘we believe is the common argument of the uninstructed’ – of the workers who, under the influence of malicious agitation, had developed erroneous views of steam and turned blind to its gifts.8 At a critical juncture in the crisis, such beliefs were translated into direct action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 14:11
|
|
|
The Luddites were right in pretty much every sense tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
Futanari Damacy posted:The Luddites were right in pretty much every sense tbh it's no accident that they're widely known only as a caricature, rather than by their biggest demand, the downward redistribution of the fruits of productivity gains
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
Futanari Damacy posted:The Luddites were right in pretty much every sense tbh Industrialized socialism is an oxymoron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:Industrialized socialism is an oxymoron. no I don't think so
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
Industrialization is functionally what led to theories of Marxism in the first place 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Futanari Damacy posted:Industrialization is functionally what led to theories of Marxism in the first place Marxism wouldn't need to exist in the first place if capitalism hadn't eaten human society to begin with. Socialist theory is, at its core, all about unlearning the lies and dependencies capitalism foisted upon humans. That includes reliance on automation for society to function.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
if the yoke was invented under capitalism, luddite ploughmen would've been protesting against oxen stealing their jobs and leaving them to starve instead of steam engines it's not about machines or automation, it's about capitalists taking the fruits of any technological improvement for themselves
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:if the yoke was invented under capitalism, luddite ploughmen would've been protesting against oxen stealing their jobs and leaving them to starve instead of steam engines So long as technological systems exist, that exploitation will always inevitably occur, no matter what economic system that you claim be under, because ultimately SOME individual human is physically directing the technology in some way. The totality of history of all civilization is the history of capitalist and imperialist exploitation, with technological "advancement" as its catalyst and primary vector of control. We must seize the means of production in order to ultimately destroy them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:Socialist theory is, at its core, all about unlearning the lies and dependencies capitalism foisted upon humans. sure Tree Reformat posted:That includes reliance on automation for society to function. wait a second 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
nobody is going to liberate themselves into subsistence farming (if they can avoid it! whew...) and if you're not advocating that what your conception of "automation" or "mechanization" is is arbitrary and dumb lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:Marxism wouldn't need to exist in the first place if capitalism hadn't eaten human society to begin with. no I don't think so
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:So long as technological systems exist, that exploitation will always inevitably occur, no matter what economic system that you claim be under, because ultimately SOME individual human is physically directing the technology in some way. The totality of history of all civilization is the history of capitalist and imperialist exploitation, with technological "advancement" as its catalyst and primary vector of control. uphold marxist-leninist-kaczynskist thought
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Tree Reformat posted:So long as technological systems exist, that exploitation will always inevitably occur, no matter what economic system that you claim be under, because ultimately SOME individual human is physically directing the technology in some way. The totality of history of all civilization is the history of capitalist and imperialist exploitation, with technological "advancement" as its catalyst and primary vector of control. didn't know there were teenagers on somethingawful in tyool 2023
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
AI art is neat. If you can't keep up maybe make less derivative shite? Sorry I been drinkin
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:AI art is neat. If you can't keep up maybe make less derivative shite? Competition is the completest expression of the battle of all against all which rules in modern civil society. This battle, a battle for life, for existence, for everything, in case of need a battle of life and death, is fought not between the different classes of society only, but also between the individual members of these classes. Each is in the way of the other, and each seeks to crowd out all who are in his way, and to put himself in their place. The workers are in constant competition among themselves as are the members of the bourgeoisie among themselves. The power-loom weaver is in competition with the hand-loom weaver, the unemployed or ill-paid hand-loom weaver with him who has work or is better paid, each trying to supplant the other. But this competition of the workers among themselves is the worst side of the present state of things in its effect upon the worker, the sharpest weapon against the proletariat in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Hence the effort of the workers to nullify this competition by associations, hence the hatred of the bourgeoisie towards these associations, and its triumph in every defeat which befalls them. The proletarian is helpless; left to himself, he cannot live a single day. The bourgeoisie has gained a monopoly of all means of existence in the broadest sense of the word. What the proletarian needs, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which is protected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death. It offers him the means of living, but only for an "equivalent", for his work. It even lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Competition is the completest expression of the battle of all against all which rules in modern civil society. This battle, a battle for life, for existence, for everything, in case of need a battle of life and death, is fought not between the different classes of society only, but also between the individual members of these classes. Each is in the way of the other, and each seeks to crowd out all who are in his way, and to put himself in their place. The workers are in constant competition among themselves as are the members of the bourgeoisie among themselves. The power-loom weaver is in competition with the hand-loom weaver, the unemployed or ill-paid hand-loom weaver with him who has work or is better paid, each trying to supplant the other. But this competition of the workers among themselves is the worst side of the present state of things in its effect upon the worker, the sharpest weapon against the proletariat in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Hence the effort of the workers to nullify this competition by associations, hence the hatred of the bourgeoisie towards these associations, and its triumph in every defeat which befalls them. That's right, draw me a better booba or starve
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
Kind of funny that the robots are now more likely to replace people who use to write articles about how Robots were going to take away the McDonald and Starbucks jobs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
Currently anything written by AI reads like a student trying to stretch an essay word count, so probably
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 14:01
|
|
|
Well as has been said, if you have a handle on art history, what it makes isn’t really art because it doesn’t understand style, convention, canon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Well as has been said, if you have a handle on art history, what it makes isn’t really art because it doesn’t understand style, convention, canon. you don't need to understand style convention or canon to make art. see: the first cave painting
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Stay tuned for my upcoming thinkpiece: AI is Getting Better at Art, and It's Making Cave People Nervous
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
indigi posted:you don't need to understand style convention or canon to make art. see: the first cave painting oh, so you dont think CAVEMEN are capable of understanding style or convention?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
I'm saying there were no such things at the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2023 17:58
|
|