this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
26 points (93.3% liked)
Asklemmy
49820 readers
654 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These are distinct hypotheticals.
In the first case, the question is if it is equivalent, does the use-value change? The answer is no.
In the second case, the question is "if we can tell, does it matter?" And the answer is yes in some cases, no in others. If the reason we want a painting is for its artisinal creation, but it turns out it was AI-generated, then this fundamentally cannot satisfy the use of an image for its appretiation due to artisinally being generated. If the reason we want an image is to convey an idea, such that it would be faster, easier, and higher quality than an amateur sketch, but in no way needs to be appreciated for its artisinal creation, then it does not matter if we can tell or not.
Another way of looking at it is a mass-produced chair vs a hand-crafted one. If I want a chair that lets me sit, then it doesn't matter to me which chair I have, both are equivalent in that they both satisfy the same need. If I have a specific vision and a desire for the chair as it exists artisinally, say, by being created in a historical way, then they cannot be equivalent use-values for me.
This argument strikes me as a tautology. "If we don't care if it's different, then it doesn't matter to us".
But that ship has sailed. We do care.
We care because the use of AI says something about our view of ourselves as human beings. We care because these systems represent a new serfdom in so many ways. We care because AI is flooding our information environment with slop and enabling fascism.
And I don't believe it's possible for us to go back to a state of not-caring about whether or not something is AI-generated. Like it or not, ideas and symbols matter.
"We" in this moment is you, right now. If the end product is the same, then it is the same. If the process is the use-value then it matters, but if not, it doesn't.
Ideas and symbols matter, sure, but not because of any metaphysical value you ascribe them, but the ideas they convey.
First you said "it doesn't matter if we can tell or not", which I responded to.
So I'm confused by your reply here.
I quite literally stated that it matters in some cases and not in others.
If the process is the purpose, then it matters. If the end product is the purpose, then it largely doesn't.
I am saying that we can no longer meaningfully separate the two things.
Cognition and AI? We absolutely can, just because some people fail doesn't mean it's intrinsic.
No, I'm saying we can no longer meaningfully separate the product and the process.
We do by default in capitalism, that's the basis of commodity fetishism.
That's not a rejection of what I said, so I assume you agree.
The product exists as a use-value. How it is created does not matter for the user of the use-value unless the process was the use, ie art. Labor is all that matters from the worker's perspective, they get none of what they create unless they are paid in kind. What you appear to be arguing is that labor involving AI is an almost supernatural corrupting force, like a calculator.
Ah to be fair i did misinterpret your previous statement.
But no, I am arguing that we are not able to ignore knowledge of the production process. Nothing mystical about that.
What does "ignoring knowledge of the production process" even mean? Who is doing the ignoring? What knowledge are we talking about? You've said before that using AI is instrinsically damaging, but have only shown proof that AI can be misused if we don't understand its limitations, a sentiment the article you linked echos exactly but you appear to disagree with.
sigh
You said it doesn't matter if we can tell how something was made.
This conversation is over. Thanks
I said from the consumer's point of view, it doesn't matter unless the process is the commodity, ie art. I said that if the process isn't the commodity, then from the consumer's perspective, they are roughly equivalent if both are identical end-products.
From the laborer's point of view, throwing a few prompts into an LLM is hardly an expression of artistry, art has use-value when the medium is intimately grappled with as a form of expression, whatever form that may be. If the laborer is just trying to show a floor plan, for example, they don't need to draw it by hand, the information is the goal. AI is fine if advanced enough to help with that.
That's why it's important to correctly analyze tools, their limitations, and where they could have potential use, rather than insisting on avoiding tool usage for not making us "struggle" as hard.