this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
479 points (90.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
986 readers
96 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I didn't take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.
"I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all."
It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as "hello fellow workers". Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:
"the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside."
But then you are doing this strange double speak: "Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well" "AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside." So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.
If you really don't use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don't use? It's because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?
I repeat the part you didn't read from a small comment you call "essay": Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.
We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.
because the criticism is nearly always just "I don't like it"; see the original comment.
You're either deeply confused about what I said or you're deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn't.
I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.
"because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment."
It is odd for you to say that that criticism for generative AI amounts to arguments of taste after openly admitting that you disregarded a good amount of the criticism I just wrote. You want a good faith discussion but you haven't touched my questions:
Is it valid for people to criticize the use of a specific technology that affects their lives and their work?
I current applications of AI have a capitalistic tendencies then is it safe to say that it won't exist in a post capitalist society?
Isn't it true that art is available to anyone but all that Gen AI offers is centralization control and cooption of creative resources?