The one used in this thread: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12973939
Mind you, I didn’t set out to deceive anyone. It was more of a “why call attention to it” thing. It’s probably the only time I’ve posted anything AI where I didn’t explicitly call attention to it as AI. But I’ve learned in the times I did do that here that some person or other would be upset, pretty much no matter what the content was of what I posted.
I figured, one of the primary complaints about AI generated images, is essentially that they look like they’re trying to look professional but make basic errors. Which I think is a fair criticism. So I thought, what if I use stick figures. That’s closer to meme level of illustration and expectations are lower for it, so if some basic mistakes exist, that’s par for the course.
I did write the text itself as rhetoric and fictional conversation, but I didn’t draw any of the image, nor did I place the text in the image. It was received extremely well for a lemmygrad post. I’m sure it is easily the most upvoted post I’ve ever made. I don’t know what made it work so well, maybe the commonness of issues with landlords, but I can only guess as the responses didn’t tell me much about the why.
One person did say “Ai stickfigures?” which surprised me a bit. I didn’t think it looked overtly AI genned. But I asked them “why do you ask?” because I wanted to be sure whether it was confrontational or sincere interest in where it came from. They never responded, so I’m not sure.
But anyway, the fact that it was AI somehow didn’t prevent it from seemingly resonating with people. I never would have drawn any such image on my own. I could make an attempt, but it would probably look like a child’s fridge drawing and I would have especially struggled with the vividness of the facial expressions, which was where I sought to do the contrast between the feigned victimhood followed by literal mustache twirling villain. Caricature, but gets the point across.
Given how I’ve seen some react on here, I can’t help but think it would have been a shitshow if I’d called attention to it being AI generated or if it had been drawn in such a way that it looked stereotypically “AI”. Instead, as of posting this, it totaled at 111 upvotes and 0 downvotes.
It’s always hard to tell the impact things have in a virtual forum, but with the limited metrics I have to go by, it went really well. And I didn’t draw a pixel of it. This paints a picture for me that the issue with AI generated content in these spaces is not when it’s AI generated but when people believe that it is. But people can believe something is even when it isn’t. Or in this case, likely assume it isn’t when it is. Maybe I’m wrong and the 100+ people who upvoted thought “AI” and upvoted anyway, but given how things usually go here, I doubt it.
I hope no one takes this as trickery or something. Having seen more recent angst on here relating to AI, I thought calling attention to this is an opportunity to make a point. When I went to make that image, it was mainly about seeing what kind of effective agitprop I could make with AI. Maybe knowing this explicitly will inspire some people to think more about how they can use it too, beyond the hated stereotypes, with thoughtfulness of design put into it. I am still determined to aid in strategic thought and practice, no matter how much mud is slung. Liberation demands it of me.
You’re right to be mad about a lot of things. Help me help you be mad at the right people in a way that will change the world for the better.
It’s not laughable at all. Artisanal artists own their own means of production, they are not proletarian, but petit bourgeois.
It’s why memes came to be in the first place. Memes are more relatable than any other form of media, and it’s because they are being made by fellow proletarians, who cannot afford to put days of labor into a funny picture.
If artists were proletarian, there would have been no need for memes.
Artists are petty bourgeois. Amusingly once one knows the basics of dialectical materialism its pretty easy to parse and I did so in my studies when I was learning of how proletariatization comes to artisans. It actually drove me to find a career in this to be in control of my means of production. This was even prior to AI’s large popularity boom. When I use the term artists I think I’m being far more liberal than most. I think a distinction should be made.
“Professional artists” more adequately fill this position. However, because anyone can create inherently and its a form of expression. I’ve been interpreting and using “artist” to mean anyone who makes anything, including memes. A “creative” probably defines better what I was referring to and I wont interpret these such a way again.
Ultimately however petty bourgeois is a subcategory that explains certain groups tendency to capitalist idealism over working class consciousness, despite they themselves not taking part in wage exploitation(or of course smaller business owners but this isn’t the focus here.).
I mention the part implying artists are bourgeois collaborators as being laughable because I’m heavily involved in punk culture. Nearly all artists I know are Anarchist, Marxist, or at minimum hate capitalism. So while I agree with artisans filling this petty bourgeois label, I believe they are able to be pulled into either bourgeois idealism or proletariat materialist struggle. We often see rich and famous artisans, but that is only because they have the money to constantly advertise their work and are in close relation to other bourgeois. Yet most of those who create art are primarily getting their income from the sale of wage-labour.
This is primarily why I thought it was laughable to assume they are incapable of becoming revolutionary. I’m an professional artist and a Marxist-Leninist. I create propaganda and organize for a revolution. I already prove that it is possible to be aligned with proletariat liberation thus the absolute is immediately disproven, let alone any anecdotal evidence of the people I personally know.
The essay is not discussing me for the terms I listed before. I do not fall into the categories of critique it is listed for. I don’t support copyright laws. I’m not arguing against AI for the sake of artists market share. I do not argue that human art has a “soul” only that AI has a reputation, and interpretation that will influence its spread.
I’d argue there’s some reactionary sentiment to anyone who is not 100% backing AI in every place it is implemented in. I’m discussing the reasons I believe it will fall short of expectations and why I think most of AI functions is a honeypot. The linking of an essay as to why artists are bourgeois collaborators despite the reasons I submitted being unrelated I think falls in line with this “Pro AI reactionary” behavior. It’s not a perfect technology. Much like using a hammer to put in a screw isn’t effective even if it works. Which is the initial discussion.
However, it’s actually a really good essay and thank you for giving it to me. While it wasn’t related to my discussion it did help me hone and develop why I disliked those arguments being used before. It also helps with understanding class relations of artists in general of course.