Diane Warren is moved to tears by AI slop, reposts it on TikTok

[Pablo 8,585]

3 hours ago, Jill said:

There are worse things. The reality is that the fact a computer can do this is amazing and unbelievable in many ways. I think there's nothing wrong with the animation itself. It's well-made, coherent, has a distinct style, and tells a story with a beginning, middle, and end. One could say a lot about the overuse of these kinds of tools for easy engagement, but in and of itself (even if many don't like it right now) it's the future, and it's only going to get better and better.

It's no longer 'slop' I think. It's a paradigm shift in art and video, much like digital cameras, 3D animation/VFX, sound, or color once were. With every one of those changes, many critics spoke out about the "loss of humanity" (which is something abstract) but even so, "humanity" (whatever that means) has always survived, and society kept moving forward. I suspect something similar will happen in a few years time, and that 5 or 10 years from now, this will no longer be referred to as slop. What I can say now, for example, is that I would've absolutely loved to have access to these kinds of tools as a kid.

All your examples require actual human effort. AI generated slop is just a lazy prompt. What happens to all the animators jobs 5-10 years from now?

[Lord Mayhem 3,428]

Instagram I'm devastated 

Edited February 20 by Lord Mayhem

[liamgaga 795]

Im crying 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Jill 31,812]

3 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Call me a Luddite, but I’d just assume have most of this tech completely destroyed.

32 minutes ago, Pablo said:

All your examples require actual human effort. AI generated slop is just a lazy prompt. What happens to all the animators jobs 5-10 years from now?

I will focus on the Luddite comparison and answer the other comment as well. The Luddite thing is a very interesting comparison actually. The Luddites were revolutionaries. They were people who recognized the inherent contradictions of nascent capitalism. This is why Marxists, for instance, study them extensively, because they were the predecessors of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of them. The same applies to figures like St. Thomas More, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. They were great people, very great and intelligent actually, but they were more or less victims of their own time.

Now, the Luddites did what they did out of fear of losing their way of life and their livelihood in the face of a changing world. They were right, because the artisans were going to lose their sustenance with the arrival of machines. Similarly, with the birth of AI, many people (under capitalism) are going to lose their jobs.

But the Luddites made a crucial mistake: they laid the blame on the machines (which are inert beings) rather than those who controlled them, who were men of flesh and blood. Exactly the same thing is happening now. It's as if history is reminding us once again where we stand!! With AI, many blame the machine and not the men who wield it. They blame not the system of production that permits the loss of jobs, but the technology itself. And to me, that's the great error. It is the exact same situation as the Luddites.

As early as the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union reached a correct conclusion that had previously been ignored, which is that computing (and cybernetics in general) is, in and of itself, neutral. What makes it non-neutral are the men who use it. In a socialist world, computing will be socialist. In a capitalist one, it will be capitalist. It's the same as other phenomena like markets: markets have existed for a long, long time, even before capitalism, and so logically they will exist afterwards too. That's why in China, the Communist Party always repeats the phrase adopted by Deng Xiaoping:

"We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism", Deng said.

And so markets are socialist under socialism and capitalist under capitalism. The same goes for technology, the same for AI.

The same applies also to linguistics, for example. Stalin already identified this when discussing linguistics in his famous treatise "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics", stating that linguistics itself, and language, can certainly be a tool of class, but that is doesn't possess a class nature in and of itself. When the mode of production changes, the language does not change. What changes is the way it is exercised.

Therefore, our focus must be on the capitalists who use AI to skimp on labor costs, to threaten workers and laborers who are already constantly battered, and to "confirm" to them that there is nothing beyond the misery they currently have. But that is not the case, because there is something more, a greater horizon exists for the working class. Technology will advance whether we want it to or not, and attempting to stop it will be fruitless. The way to solve this is by choosing the true enemy: the one who thinks, the one who acts, not the machine.

Edited February 21 by Jill

[4th Time Around 5,059]

Why are so many boomers obsessed with AI slop? 

[Monstermilo 5,473]

this is why she cant win an oscar

[Pablo 8,585]

2 hours ago, Jill said:

I will focus on the Luddite comparison and answer the other comment as well. The Luddite thing is a very interesting comparison actually. The Luddites were revolutionaries. They were people who recognized the inherent contradictions of nascent capitalism. This is why Marxists, for instance, study them extensively, because they were the predecessors of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of them. The same applies to figures like St. Thomas More, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. They were great people, very great and intelligent actually, but they were more or less victims of their own time.

Now, the Luddites did what they did out of fear of losing their way of life and their livelihood in the face of a changing world. They were right, because the artisans were going to lose their sustenance with the arrival of machines. Similarly, with the birth of AI, many people (under capitalism) are going to lose their jobs.

But the Luddites made a crucial mistake: they laid the blame on the machines (which are inert beings) rather than those who controlled them, who were men of flesh and blood. Exactly the same thing is happening now. It's as if history is reminding us once again where we stand!! With AI, many blame the machine and not the men who wield it. They blame not the system of production that permits the loss of jobs, but the technology itself. And to me, that's the great error. It is the exact same situation as the Luddites.

As early as the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union reached a correct conclusion that had previously been ignored, which is that computing (and cybernetics in general) is, in and of itself, neutral. What makes it non-neutral are the men who use it. In a socialist world, computing will be socialist. In a capitalist one, it will be capitalist. It's the same as other phenomena like markets: markets have existed for a long, long time, even before capitalism, and so logically they will exist afterwards too. That's why in China, the Communist Party always repeats the phrase adopted by Deng Xiaoping:

"We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism", Deng said.

And so markets are socialist under socialism and capitalist under capitalism. The same goes for technology, the same for AI.

The same applies also to linguistics, for example. Stalin already identified this when discussing linguistics in his famous treatise "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics", stating that linguistics itself, and language, can certainly be a tool of class, but that is doesn't possess a class nature in and of itself. When the mode of production changes, the language does not change. What changes is the way it is exercised.

Therefore, our focus must be on the capitalists who use AI to skimp on labor costs, to threaten workers and laborers who are already constantly battered, and to "confirm" to them that there is nothing beyond the misery they currently have. But that is not the case, because there is something more, a greater horizon exists for the working class. Technology will advance whether we want it to or not, and attempting to stop it will be fruitless. The way to solve this is by choosing the true enemy: the one who thinks, the one who acts, not the machine.

Did AI write this?

[Jill 31,812]

33 minutes ago, Pablo said:

Did AI write this?

No. Not every person who writes well uses AI. I write very well when I want to, and I know what I'm talking about when I talk about these things.

This is the Deng Xiaoping interview I directly quoted in the comment, which is very engaging if you're interested in the subject. But be careful because it could be AI who knows: https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/we-can-develop-a-market-economy-under-socialism/

Edited February 21 by Jill

[timdrake 1,927]

she's such an aunt

not an auntie

just an aunt

it's different

[phantasmas 12,371]

[garbage day 11,817]

7 hours ago, Jill said:

Don't get me wrong, this animation is the AI equivalent of that Ratatouille knockoff movie "Ratatoing", but that doesn't mean the technology behind it lacks potential for this sort of thing. In 20 years, maybe less, companies like Pixar will start operating almost entirely with this kind of tech.

Edited February 21 by vanna shintuyu

[garbage day 11,817]

4 hours ago, Jill said:

I will focus on the Luddite comparison and answer the other comment as well. The Luddite thing is a very interesting comparison actually. The Luddites were revolutionaries. They were people who recognized the inherent contradictions of nascent capitalism. This is why Marxists, for instance, study them extensively, because they were the predecessors of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of them. The same applies to figures like St. Thomas More, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. They were great people, very great and intelligent actually, but they were more or less victims of their own time.

Now, the Luddites did what they did out of fear of losing their way of life and their livelihood in the face of a changing world. They were right, because the artisans were going to lose their sustenance with the arrival of machines. Similarly, with the birth of AI, many people (under capitalism) are going to lose their jobs.

But the Luddites made a crucial mistake: they laid the blame on the machines (which are inert beings) rather than those who controlled them, who were men of flesh and blood. Exactly the same thing is happening now. It's as if history is reminding us once again where we stand!! With AI, many blame the machine and not the men who wield it. They blame not the system of production that permits the loss of jobs, but the technology itself. And to me, that's the great error. It is the exact same situation as the Luddites.

As early as the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union reached a correct conclusion that had previously been ignored, which is that computing (and cybernetics in general) is, in and of itself, neutral. What makes it non-neutral are the men who use it. In a socialist world, computing will be socialist. In a capitalist one, it will be capitalist. It's the same as other phenomena like markets: markets have existed for a long, long time, even before capitalism, and so logically they will exist afterwards too. That's why in China, the Communist Party always repeats the phrase adopted by Deng Xiaoping:

"We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism", Deng said.

And so markets are socialist under socialism and capitalist under capitalism. The same goes for technology, the same for AI.

The same applies also to linguistics, for example. Stalin already identified this when discussing linguistics in his famous treatise "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics", stating that linguistics itself, and language, can certainly be a tool of class, but that is doesn't possess a class nature in and of itself. When the mode of production changes, the language does not change. What changes is the way it is exercised.

Therefore, our focus must be on the capitalists who use AI to skimp on labor costs, to threaten workers and laborers who are already constantly battered, and to "confirm" to them that there is nothing beyond the misery they currently have. But that is not the case, because there is something more, a greater horizon exists for the working class. Technology will advance whether we want it to or not, and attempting to stop it will be fruitless. The way to solve this is by choosing the true enemy: the one who thinks, the one who acts, not the machine.

You sound like a crypto bro trying to rationalize the importance of NFTs in 2023.

[RAMROD 117,064]

4 hours ago, Jill said:

I will focus on the Luddite comparison and answer the other comment as well. The Luddite thing is a very interesting comparison actually. The Luddites were revolutionaries. They were people who recognized the inherent contradictions of nascent capitalism. This is why Marxists, for instance, study them extensively, because they were the predecessors of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of them. The same applies to figures like St. Thomas More, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. They were great people, very great and intelligent actually, but they were more or less victims of their own time.

Now, the Luddites did what they did out of fear of losing their way of life and their livelihood in the face of a changing world. They were right, because the artisans were going to lose their sustenance with the arrival of machines. Similarly, with the birth of AI, many people (under capitalism) are going to lose their jobs.

But the Luddites made a crucial mistake: they laid the blame on the machines (which are inert beings) rather than those who controlled them, who were men of flesh and blood. Exactly the same thing is happening now. It's as if history is reminding us once again where we stand!! With AI, many blame the machine and not the men who wield it. They blame not the system of production that permits the loss of jobs, but the technology itself. And to me, that's the great error. It is the exact same situation as the Luddites.

As early as the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union reached a correct conclusion that had previously been ignored, which is that computing (and cybernetics in general) is, in and of itself, neutral. What makes it non-neutral are the men who use it. In a socialist world, computing will be socialist. In a capitalist one, it will be capitalist. It's the same as other phenomena like markets: markets have existed for a long, long time, even before capitalism, and so logically they will exist afterwards too. That's why in China, the Communist Party always repeats the phrase adopted by Deng Xiaoping:

"We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism", Deng said.

And so markets are socialist under socialism and capitalist under capitalism. The same goes for technology, the same for AI.

The same applies also to linguistics, for example. Stalin already identified this when discussing linguistics in his famous treatise "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics", stating that linguistics itself, and language, can certainly be a tool of class, but that is doesn't possess a class nature in and of itself. When the mode of production changes, the language does not change. What changes is the way it is exercised.

Therefore, our focus must be on the capitalists who use AI to skimp on labor costs, to threaten workers and laborers who are already constantly battered, and to "confirm" to them that there is nothing beyond the misery they currently have. But that is not the case, because there is something more, a greater horizon exists for the working class. Technology will advance whether we want it to or not, and attempting to stop it will be fruitless. The way to solve this is by choosing the true enemy: the one who thinks, the one who acts, not the machine.

[Jill 31,812]

1 hour ago, vanna shintuyu said:

You sound like a crypto bro trying to rationalize the importance of NFTs in 2023.

 

1 hour ago, RAMROD said:

If you guys think AI is a fad you'll be disappointed in the future. NFTs were obviously a fad from the very beginning, they never had a productive application within the economy. And not even that, you wouldn't be able to find a Marxist defending NFTs because they're simply an attempt to commodify even more of social life, and a very pathetic and unproductive attempt at that.

But Marxists do defend the advancement of technology, and AI is an example of that. AI does have a productive application within the economy, that's the main difference here. Don't look at the US for this, its AI strategy is crap and based almost solely on chatbots. Look at China's advancements on real, productive things like the agricultural sector and medicine. Also in the film industry, with tools like Seedance which are being actively used in production, unlike in the US. These are two atithetical models, but they don't ignore AI, they just use it for different means. I gave my thoughts on the matter and you guys didn't even engage on why you think they're wrong.

Edited February 21 by Jill

[MOT 3,608]

7 hours ago, Jill said:

I will focus on the Luddite comparison and answer the other comment as well. The Luddite thing is a very interesting comparison actually. The Luddites were revolutionaries. They were people who recognized the inherent contradictions of nascent capitalism. This is why Marxists, for instance, study them extensively, because they were the predecessors of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the rest of them. The same applies to figures like St. Thomas More, Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier. They were great people, very great and intelligent actually, but they were more or less victims of their own time.

Now, the Luddites did what they did out of fear of losing their way of life and their livelihood in the face of a changing world. They were right, because the artisans were going to lose their sustenance with the arrival of machines. Similarly, with the birth of AI, many people (under capitalism) are going to lose their jobs.

But the Luddites made a crucial mistake: they laid the blame on the machines (which are inert beings) rather than those who controlled them, who were men of flesh and blood. Exactly the same thing is happening now. It's as if history is reminding us once again where we stand!! With AI, many blame the machine and not the men who wield it. They blame not the system of production that permits the loss of jobs, but the technology itself. And to me, that's the great error. It is the exact same situation as the Luddites.

As early as the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union reached a correct conclusion that had previously been ignored, which is that computing (and cybernetics in general) is, in and of itself, neutral. What makes it non-neutral are the men who use it. In a socialist world, computing will be socialist. In a capitalist one, it will be capitalist. It's the same as other phenomena like markets: markets have existed for a long, long time, even before capitalism, and so logically they will exist afterwards too. That's why in China, the Communist Party always repeats the phrase adopted by Deng Xiaoping:

"We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism", Deng said.

And so markets are socialist under socialism and capitalist under capitalism. The same goes for technology, the same for AI.

The same applies also to linguistics, for example. Stalin already identified this when discussing linguistics in his famous treatise "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics", stating that linguistics itself, and language, can certainly be a tool of class, but that is doesn't possess a class nature in and of itself. When the mode of production changes, the language does not change. What changes is the way it is exercised.

Therefore, our focus must be on the capitalists who use AI to skimp on labor costs, to threaten workers and laborers who are already constantly battered, and to "confirm" to them that there is nothing beyond the misery they currently have. But that is not the case, because there is something more, a greater horizon exists for the working class. Technology will advance whether we want it to or not, and attempting to stop it will be fruitless. The way to solve this is by choosing the true enemy: the one who thinks, the one who acts, not the machine.

That's a great post. Really well written and thought--provoking and I enjoyed reading it. Thank you for taking the trouble.

Reading on down through the replies I see someone else has already reached for the 'is this AI' joke that I was going to make 🙂. Your comment is not AI, but I'm sure AI could achieve the same quality, and that in itsrelf is remarkable and thought-provoking.