For being such keen environmentalists and anti-fascists, the Lib Dems need to be far more critical of generative AI than we currently are. But as opposed to talking about the obvious and well-known environmental damage that AI causes, I’d like to focus on the much less talked about the latter: AI art as the contemporary fascist aesthetic.
This should be glaringly apparent if we just take a short look at the people who are pro-AI art: from Trump and his administration using Ghibli-style AI images to publicise their illegal and inhumane deportations, to Elon Musk generating a drawing of a patriotic “Kekius Maximus”, his weird gamer Pepe frogsona, to fantasise about his non-existent video game street cred and prowess. They celebrate AI animation with terrible fluidity and consistency, “art” that they would immediately mock as “bad” if it were created by a human, and they routinely boast that AI will replace human artists (Stonetoss Comics, infamous neo-nazi).
People like them and their followers hail the technology as so-called “democratisation of art”, but typical of Trumpists, that is nothing but doublespeak. Akin to the Nazi Germany branding modern art as “degenerate art” in the 1920s, so are the neo-nazis of today trying to do the same with human art of all kinds. Only, instead of attacking certain forms of art as degenerate by appealing to a fictitious racial/national identity, artists today are antagonised as incompetent and expensive by appealing to the relentless pursuit for profit and disdain for everything else.
It is clear that the goal of these neo-nazis is not to make creating conventionally beautiful art easy for the masses but to devalue and ultimately erase the human element. They hate the idea of art as a form of expression; they actively despise the human process of creating art; they are the ones that, quite literally, Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue.
The case against generative AI of today is much more consequential than your local artist losing out on a few quid. Instead, the billionaire neo-fascists are slowly pushing for the erosion of art, this time through the guise of monetary gain and increased efficiency. So, when Lib Dems who share so much of my values start unashamedly using AI like this (no hate to the Young Liberals, there are many more examples), it shakes me to my core. I thought we would know better, when in fact we are, as the Chinese proverb goes, those that fled 50 steps in the battlefield laughing at the cowardness of those that fled 100.
Go on Fiverr, commission a small artist, it won’t break the bank.
* rrakku wishes to remain anonymous but their identity has been verified by the LDV Editorial Team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
5 Comments
Having used AI to create images and videos for fun, not for any political agenda, I think small artists have less to fear from it than one may think, if only because it is actually quite difficult to get AI to do what you want it to do – ironically, far from keeping things simple by following your prompts, its ‘imagination’, if you can call it, runs wild.
Consequently, if you do want something professional, you still need to edit images yourself, or if you don’t have the skills, pay a freelancer to do it.
It’s like using self-service tills at supermarkets – more often than not, you need to get a member of staff to help you because the barcode on the item won’t scan or if it’s a reduced item, so far from making humans redundant, it makes them even more important when technology doesn’t work.
As someone who has done translation work, I have been concerned by the use of AI translation, particularly when it comes to dubbing, as it doesn’t matter how convincing automated AI dubbing looks if the translation sounds awkward to speakers of the target language. Human language is just that, human, and the boundless faith some tech companies I’ve dealt with have in automated translation isn’t just arrogant, it’s plain naive.
‘The case against generative AI of today is much more consequential than your local artist losing out on a few quid.’
Your main point may be valid. But please don’t trivialise the effect on people losing income. For example, I’ve seen too many professional photographers lose their jobs/ income in recent years, destroyed by amateurs with camera phones and the availability of free images on the internet. AI images and content are yet more nails in the coffin for people trying to make a living in creative industries.
I disagree with the writer’s views.
There are of course important issues regarding intellectual property protection when human created material is used to train AI engines.
However I see no values implications in using AI to create either drawings, paintings, music, or written text.
Personally I prefer to do my own writing rather than using AI to prepare a draft, because I pride myself on my writing. However I don’t regard people who use AI as falling into some kind of fascist trap.
I do use AI for research, and making greater use of AI was my new year resolution.
Cassie – I agree! And I am sorry if I came across as trivialising the slow death of a human craft, I assure you that I’m not trying to. That’s why I encourage people to engage with artists of all kinds more, just look at how I ended my Op-ed!
Ken – Perhaps I shouldn’t have worded the first sentence of my conclusion to be about small artists: that was not what the argument I’m trying to make. My main point is that AI’s most vocal supporters and the companies that control the models is trying to erase culture they deem not fit for their worldview.
If human artists were ever to be replaced by AI, it will not be because AI has gotten more compotent, it will be because the neo-nazi’s have won the messaging war. That art need not be good, it only needs to be convenient and cheap, just like every other commodity.
Mohammed – I have to say, your comment does not engage with my Op-ed at all. Ironically, feels like something written by AI.
What is important is that art has a human element that is substantial. Art produced by machines lacks the appeal that associating it with a person or persons does. I am satisfied with the works of Shakespeare or Picasso so don’t see how any machine can surpass true genius.