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: “It’s icky” "ai sucks" The image itself is generated, rather than artisinally created 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.

Your only point is: If it supports my ideology it’s good

No. My point is that technology that eliminates labor is useful, and correctly analyzing where it’s useful and where it isn’t is important. It is better to save time where we can, such is the purpose of technology that amplifies what labor creates.

The impactful thing here is your output, not that of the slop machine, and I don’t think it’s having the influence you’d hope for mr. downvote

What is the actual difference in output in the use-case here? What changes about the message if this meme was artisinally created, especially if you couldn’t tell? This is why it’s important to discard idealism and to embrace materialism, idealism adds confusing baggage that clouds our judgement.

The difference is whether we’re engaging with one another collectively or being engaged by a machine in isolation. If we couldn’t tell the difference we would be “cooked” and it would be “so over” as the kids say. This is why it’s important to care about the human element, freebasing materialism has apparently caused you to dismiss your fellow man as confusing baggage baggage Further, this (thankfully) doesn’t seem very well-recieved, I would say in large part because it is thoughtless, souless, trite, mechanized slop. It’s making a room full of countercultural system-smashers who would otherwise agree with at least the general sentiment stop and think that you suck too

As I said, OP could have grabbed a stock image and wordart and made the exact same image. Is it still intrinsically bad? We interact with machines and use tools all the time to shortcut processes that used to be artisinal. Taking photos of people instead of drawing them by hand did not erase the desire for portraits, but it added the ability to shortcut photography for times where applicable. As for where you’re getting the idea that OP’s image isn’t well-recieved from, I have no idea. Your top comment is 50% upvoted and 50% downvoted, and everyone else is talking about the content of the image. Saying we are “cooked and so over” without further elaboration isn’t a point either. I’m not dismissing my fellow man, especially because I am fighting for the right of tool usage that alleviates artisinal labor from areas it doesn’t need to be.