What is the magical function of the Robot of Modernity? We can identify it as a genre of creature, archetype, or cryptid... What does the Robot do for us socially?
Are all cryptids cultural golems?
Robots are objective, logical, unrelenting, machines, without emotion. Is this better or worse than Humans?
Flatwoods Monster is a "robot" cryptid- c/o Wikipedia
If logical ability, objectivity, and lack of emotion are prioritized by the admiring group then robots are superior to their admirers (humans). Some stories which include the robot rank emotion as being more useful than logic, showing the robot to be flawed in comparison.
We do need to talk about the desire for slaves and slavery when we talk about the robot. We can see by the objectification of an emotionless, thoughtless ideal worker that there is a desire for one in servitude that does not question their orders and only obeys. It would be naïve to not see the connections to slaves and "perfect" soldiers here. Čapek's brother does name the characters in R.U.R. (1903 play) "robot" meaning slave. but also refers to them as mere "robota" which also means "hard work".
Popular culture now views 'AI' as the antithesis of hard work and is now the obedient worker of the modern day.
What about 'AI'? That term comes from recent news and media reacting to the large changes in the field of generative computing in text and image applications. The implication in using the term 'AI' which means 'Artificial Intelligence' is just, that the computer programs possess a sort of intellect or wisdom of their own. More often than not, these signs of intelligence are displays of creative ability and not those of gross computational power or feats of intense processing. The interesting part of 'AI' is that intellect is measured in creative ability. If we accept the shortcomings of the popular term we can continue to identify the purpose of AI and therefore that of the robot as well.
AI appears as "Free Will" within the bounds of Robots (computers and AI included), what does this do? Is this desire further to the end of an ethical servant or servitude? Is it the idea of the slave who ultimately obeys but has identity, intelligence, and personality? This is the white supremacists' wet dream, to be a master loved not by forced servitude but by free choice.
c/o Dataconomy
Why do people get angry with AI replacing the "worker" within Art?
When AI generative art began to replace digital painters/concept artists there was a backlash. Currently, a lot of content is driven by the use of AI to generate a list, parameters, recipe, or challenge from which creative content creators will create within, almost like a random number generator that creates complex prompts. In this, we see that when the 'Idea Creator' is replaced by AI/generative art tools there is no negative feedback from the audience of the content. Much like Art Challenges or drawing from life, the 'Idea Creator' in this scenario does nothing besides create complex boundaries in which the created art binds to this plane of existence. The digital artist, sculptor, and musician are the 'Worker' they do the digital (with your digits) labour of finding and creating how the piece of art will bind to these ideas.
c/o TheBoxOfficeArtist
There is a social problem in replacing the 'Worker' however. If we replace the 'Worker' with AI generative tools, it creates a sort of social backlash within digital painters and concept artists. The 'Anti-AI' movement became prevalent on TikTok after the first few months of StableDiffusion and Dall-E's public use.
I think this anger comes from labour pride.
Blue-collar pride videos on the internet are so controversial, in which some men brag that they work 80-hour work weeks and about how it ties to their greater sense of masculinity. It's easy to see the irony in these. Do they desire to be subjugated under intense labour? Why does their self-worth come from dated capitalist ideas of suffering, productivity, and stubbornness?
I don't agree with these videos. But I am also not applauding and congratulating the over-objectification of artists' labour.
Some believe that 'real art' takes time. That if art doesn't take weeks then it isn't that good. A painting that takes a year is surely better than one that takes three months, regardless of how slow a painter the former is. Tracing will always be frowned upon in this space. I'm surprised using references isn't completely banned under this regime. I'm so glad that the separation of space between your model and the drawing surface is so large that there is no danger of tracing occurring. Is the amount of distance from your artistic plane to your subject proportional to the greatness of the art created? Does increasing this distance infinitely produce an artist with the skill to create objects seemingly out of thin air?
The photographs of animals and human bodies created a time when using these references was easy, too easy. Could the artists of this time no longer use live nude models? Was it forbidden to them? Or did they use what was easy and accessible to them? Without live references in front of us, we rely on what we know about subjects without seeing them, namely their identifiable traits. The traits of an Archetype allow our images to be understood by those that cannot see their reference.
To be an artist is not to suffer.
That is a modern idea.
Because the craft of the Artist (capital 'A') gained awareness during modernity, its saturation created the myth of suffering for its creation. The previous idea of the Artist has been overturned and we live with this cliché of art in pain.
We can return to the original idea of artists and begin to create effortlessly like in pre-modern times.
Why do we desire to be only ruled by Logic, Male Logos? Is it because we wish to be unfettered by emotion in the quest for unrelenting "forward" progress? Is it an effort for Man to further control society to make in his own image, like God? Is mankind against the idea of AI and Robots progressing to the point at which they can create? Man is God in the sense of not wanting his creations to they themselves create false idols.
Why are we so concerned about "the Laws"(Asimov and others) around Artificial Intelligence? Is this some sort of techno-covenant?
Kevin Kelly thinks that technology is the best visual representation we have of evolution past humankind (in physical form). The constant iteration and reinvention are like birth and survival. Failed products are like dying species. Technology is alive. It eats as we do (consumable materials and maintenance), reproduces like us (through iteration), and loves and is loved (through excellent functionality).
Why are we worried, as the father, that our sons will rise up to overthrow us?
This Patrichial relationship (and terms) dominate a lot of Creation (as a process on Earth).
"Once I create a thing, I own it."
The constant battles of copyright and fair use hold the creative process back. As the world moves further into Remix Culture... if nothing else other than socially, owning creates barriers to creativity.
Comments
Post a Comment