Can people not understand definitions that are longer than 5 words?
I dont understand why people on lemmy are trying to remove the meaning of every specific word related to politics, leaving a million synonyms of the same general thing and no word for a specific ideology
you've got it backwards: politics changes with the times and too many of us are intentionally taught to use the old definitions that stopped being applicable well before our great great grandparents died.
Nazi still has meaning today, but that doesnt stop people from calling any right wing extremist a nazi
Also, whats the point of creating more synonyms?
nazi is still new enough to hand on to its original definition; fascism isn't and doesn't.
Curse this ai slop. The fake crayon thing is really bugging me, like. Crack open a box and put a few hours in if you mean it, super accessible style
There's absolutely no reason why this short, simplistic agitprop needs to be made in artisinal fashion from a Marxist perspective. Labor hours saved is valuable, and nobody is enjoying this agitprop from the perspective of artistic analysis. AI cannot replace art, but the insistence that every graphic regardless of use-case be made in artisinal fashion is reactionary.
From a human perspective it's icky and you come across like 1950s propaganda to make commies look bad. When people express themselves they... you know what, I'm just gonna leave it at "ai sucks". Simulated human output, our entire selves slurped up and analyzed to be extruded by a corporation, if your self-defined "marxist perspective" has an excuse for that it can eat my ass
Your only complaints are:
The first 2 are non-points to begin with, and the latter is an incomplete point. Again, there is absolutely no reason why this image needs to be artisinally created. Had OP used wordart and grabbed a stock image online for the background, it would have had the same amount of human input but no AI, yet you wouldn't be calling it into question.
Nobody present is trying to tell you that AI can replace artists making art. You're making the same mistakes the Luddites did in blaming machinery for the ills of capitalism, rather than capitalism itself. The same argument was had when digital art became mainstream over hand-drawn art, and when cameras came into being. Neither digital art nor cameras have replaced traditional art, nor can they, but that doesn't mean digital art and cameras don't have legitimate use cases.
AI has limitations that AI fanatics lie about. AI also has use-cases that people try their hardest to deny. Marxism helps us understand that AI can never replace traditonal art, but can absolutely be used for things like agitprop or stock images.
Requiring that communists spend hours on artisinally producing what is ultimately a disposable image meant to agitate and spark conversation just for you to acknowledge the message is wrong. From a human perspective, requiring this artisinal agitprop in order to acknowledge the point being drivin is deeply anti-human and instead individualist.
"Make it inefficiently, enemy." nice try
Thank you for mentioning this, I thought I was the only one.
that applies to imperialism too.
plenty of anarcho-libs out there claiming to hate capitalism, while repeating cia talking points about china, venezuela, and so on.
