If you are subverting the means or process of exploitation against itself, well, that’s pretty subversive, anarchist, punk.
If you’re doing that in the digital realm?
Pretty fucking cyberpunk.
These idiot tech bros whoooshed over understanding the cyberpunk genre as a warning of what not to do, and instead adopted its aesthetic and are just now building that world, as its villains.
Sure, yes, making your own art would be better in one sense, one way of looking at this, but I guess you don’t appreciate the whole ‘turning it against itself’ aspect of this.
Turning a system against itself is the literal definition of subversion, in the context of complex systems, anyway.
Sure, its not as subversive as intentionally poisoning AIGen stuff to stupify itself over time, but I do think this counts.
Its not like you have to get the AI to draw the image every single time anyone sees it, we can still copy and paste images, host them where many can see them, etc.
To me, there is a sense of ‘art’ in the subversion itself.
If the theft machine already exists, and you don’t have the ability to destroy it, contain or restrain it more directly… using it to generate propoganda against itself, its creators?
I think that’s a clever use of it.
Like, would you say that that one piece of … kinetic/performance art, where its just a machine that you must go up to and hand crank, and it spits out penny by penny at the rate of minimum wage…
Would you say that isn’t art because it forces the art ‘experiencer’ to perform exhausting wage labor, which is simply 100% bad, all the time, no exceptions?
Turning it against itself my ass. This is promoting it. Legitimizing it. Normalizing its presence everywhere. Doing exactly what they want.
They’re on a niche forum sharing convoluted AI slop, harming that which they claim to stand for. These aren’t freedom fighters subverting the system, they’re clowns.
I mean, when Elon bought Twitter, I, having never used Twitter before, created an account just to scream at him, and I managed to get banned in a few hours.
But to attempt to answer your question: Arguably, technically, yes, but it really only matters if it significantly fucks with Elon, or inspires other to meaningfully resist him, or aide those he oppresses.
One person doing that?
Flash in the pan.
Coordinated , consistent swarm, of people or bots, doing this untill the entire site goes down?
Even better: hack in their and reroute it to fucking DDoS itself?
Maybe a bit more meaningful.
I find the use of AIGen to essentially advocate against itself to be fairly clever.
Its not like you have to burn down a bushel of wheat’s cropland every time you copy and paste an already generated image.
If you are subverting the means or process of exploitation against itself, well, that’s pretty subversive, anarchist, punk.
If you’re doing that in the digital realm?
Pretty fucking cyberpunk.
These idiot tech bros whoooshed over understanding the cyberpunk genre as a warning of what not to do, and instead adopted its aesthetic and are just now building that world, as its villains.
Well fine then.
Time to reclaim our culture.
Using gen AI isn’t punk. Fuck that bullshit all the way.
Creating your own fucking art is punk. GenAI is slop, powered by theft.
Sure, yes, making your own art would be better in one sense, one way of looking at this, but I guess you don’t appreciate the whole ‘turning it against itself’ aspect of this.
Turning a system against itself is the literal definition of subversion, in the context of complex systems, anyway.
Sure, its not as subversive as intentionally poisoning AIGen stuff to stupify itself over time, but I do think this counts.
Its not like you have to get the AI to draw the image every single time anyone sees it, we can still copy and paste images, host them where many can see them, etc.
To me, there is a sense of ‘art’ in the subversion itself.
If the theft machine already exists, and you don’t have the ability to destroy it, contain or restrain it more directly… using it to generate propoganda against itself, its creators?
I think that’s a clever use of it.
Like, would you say that that one piece of … kinetic/performance art, where its just a machine that you must go up to and hand crank, and it spits out penny by penny at the rate of minimum wage…
Would you say that isn’t art because it forces the art ‘experiencer’ to perform exhausting wage labor, which is simply 100% bad, all the time, no exceptions?
Turning it against itself my ass. This is promoting it. Legitimizing it. Normalizing its presence everywhere. Doing exactly what they want.
They’re on a niche forum sharing convoluted AI slop, harming that which they claim to stand for. These aren’t freedom fighters subverting the system, they’re clowns.
Wouldnt the same thing be able to be said about writing “Elon Musk is bad” on twitter?
I mean, when Elon bought Twitter, I, having never used Twitter before, created an account just to scream at him, and I managed to get banned in a few hours.
But to attempt to answer your question: Arguably, technically, yes, but it really only matters if it significantly fucks with Elon, or inspires other to meaningfully resist him, or aide those he oppresses.
One person doing that?
Flash in the pan.
Coordinated , consistent swarm, of people or bots, doing this untill the entire site goes down?
Even better: hack in their and reroute it to fucking DDoS itself?
Maybe a bit more meaningful.
I find the use of AIGen to essentially advocate against itself to be fairly clever.
Its not like you have to burn down a bushel of wheat’s cropland every time you copy and paste an already generated image.