#ik it's not just me and my colleagues who are capable of delivering reasonable explanations of the situation

[notthesacrifice]

A YouTube Comment I left on the Old Wound music video. I doubt anyone's gonna see it there so I thought I'd share it here. If anyone has anything to correct me on pls lmk.

To the fans: It’s understandable that this upsets most of you, a fan-base of artists, or contrarians, or supporters -- not only are you not the demographic for this video, but you see the harm it causes. My concerns, then, are not to you. Nor are they to the A.I. advocates (this is a debate I considered dead and buried). My concerns are with the minority of loud opportunists: the same people who might continue to harass Bob Bryar on Twitter. I considered this behaviour dead and buried also. But it’s back, disgusting as it is, and doing nothing of use. The small minority must know that to rip and tear as they do only harms the points they wish to defend, but especially the band. (In particular, so I’ve seen, Frank. If there’s one demand I’d make: give Frank some fucking room. Your beloved anti-fascist lyricist of Leathermouth and anti-corporate singer of Death Spells is NOT transforming into an antisemitic, conservative libertarian. Goddam!) The arguments that are common sense to you (in defence of or attacking A.I.) are absolutely not so to others. You must talk to the others as though they are children. Not patronisingly, but as though they are naive. Disregard and do not respond to anything bad faith. All the “comment section grammar correction bile” hurts the band. So if not for each other, be civil for the band.

To the band: The video is out now. It doesn’t matter. From the moment the teaser was posted it didn’t matter if the full video was released or not — it existed, it was paid for, the fuse was lit. The upset and anger are not at the form or the content, it’s at the thought (or thoughtlessness) that preceded it. Its status as art is contentious, yes, but ultimately irrelevant to the core issue. We do not live in a world where safety nets exist for artists in any form, let alone when their existence (i.e. their careers and livelihoods) are threatened by automation. This is good technology. Undoubtedly the beginning of another technological revolution. But our objective conditions do not make it safe to use when it’s application necessitates a team of artists goes unpaid in favour of one individual.

Most importantly I would say: We don’t need to consider this moralistically. If A.I. art is truly art or not, if it’s stolen or not, if it’s tied to the NFT and crypto demographic or not, is all secondary. It doesn’t matter. Materially, this application is poor now. In a decade? Maybe not. But now, there is no protection or assurance for human artists. The tale of this field’s automation is the same as any other — it will be rejected en masse and held as immoral for as long as the material conditions leave the Replaced unprotected. Art is especially tricky in this sense, as for other occupations workers may only need to be financially compensated and assigned a new line of work, but artists do what they do out of love. It is not just work, it is a pastime. So not only do the artists need the financial compensation, but they CANNOT be relocated, and they need assurance they will never be made redundant in a world that demands money be made.

I don’t like this video. If it were a decade later, or another time when artists are protected, when A.I. is assuredly a tool and not a threat or talking point, I might enjoy it more. But for now, A.I. is unfortunately objectively bad for art. And that’s something we can only change by listening to the artists