Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TinyBurbz t1_j7wwcg5 wrote

>I'm just saying that maybe the "luddites" are coping

I get called luddite constantly on this sub for pointing out more realistic outcomes for this technology, especially when it comes to media. People act as if I am against it, but I am not; it just seems like people only have vapid motivations for using a technology that would otherwise be a powerful tool in the hands of an already skilled person.

I have heard every argument from transparent "disruption" jargon, to petulant and childish desires relishing the power to change the finale of a show the poster didn't like. Its disgustingly solipsistic and degenerate.

As a society, through this tech we will find out what happens when you give stolen talent to a philistine.

3

mrpimpunicorn t1_j7ycjxo wrote

The folks that want to change aspects of commodity culture to suit their tastes are solipsistic, but the maintenance of some arbitrary sociocultural hierarchy that constrains cultural production to a (primarily) profit-motivated elite isn't?

Maybe if there actually existed a cultural vanguard that took its social role seriously I could entertain a more authoritarian position with respect to who has the right to define the culture- for the common good. But creatives lost their souls to Moloch and to their own ego at the fall just like the rest of us- they are just as much solipsists, and just as much philistines, as every other man- lest we forget that even the Mona Lisa was painted to keep its creator solvent, and commissioned to stroke a noblewoman's ego. Where art the lofty, noble goals of the so-called "enlightened" in such banal affairs of men? Daydreams and farts, one and the same.

Profit, fame, even self-expression- these are all fundamentally solipsistic ends. The person who produces culture or commissions the production of culture for the sake of the greater good rather than the self is an ideal- the vast majority of culture is already produced; and the vast majority of creative potential spent; furthering egos. AI-generated art just allows creatives and their patrons to see what they really are when their monopoly on cultural production is taken from them- mere men.

The potential for the masses to produce culture doesn't threaten to dilute the Geist, which was already unceremoniously slaughtered at the hands of the higher social classes, first for the vanity of the noblesse and then for the profit of the bourgeois- it only threatens egos. Or are the writers at HBO truly unparalleled cultural paragons, fearlessly producing what is ordered of them and collecting their paycheques in turn? Alas, which of us mere mortals could hope to rival them?

Perhaps the decommodification of art due to this technology will mark the beginning of our collective journey out of this hellish reality- one can only hope.

(I'm perhaps being a bit hyperbolic here, but you get the point)

3