Let's Avoid Inadvertently Helping AI Companies Build Facsimiles
The most valuable asset to an AI company is knowledge of how it's artificiality is detected and perceived
In a world where artificial intelligence increasingly encroaches on creativity, one of the last strongholds of human distinctiveness, a bitter irony emerges: AI’s inability to replicate the depth of human creativity is commodified by the same capitalist system critiquing it. The rebellion against AI’s superficial mimicry of art often transforms into a feedback loop where the critique itself becomes a tool for the system’s refinement.
Consider the scenario: artists create works that highlight AI’s limitations—its failure to capture emotional nuance or engage with cultural depth. These critiques expose AI’s shallow attempts to replicate human creativity. Yet, ironically, the most profitable outcome for these artists is to sell their critiques to AI companies eager to improve their algorithms. What was meant to challenge AI’s weaknesses becomes the fuel for optimizing the very systems it sought to critique, enhancing AI’s ability to mimic human art.
This process illustrates capitalism’s capacity to neutralize dissent by commodifying it. Rather than prompting reflection or systemic change, the critique of AI’s superficiality is absorbed into the system and used to improve AI’s ability to imitate human creativity. What began as a rebellion against AI’s limitations becomes part of a new optimization cycle, blurring the line between human-made and machine-made art.
At the core of this dynamic lies process fetishism: society’s tendency to overvalue the labor-intensive aspects of handmade art. This belief suggests that the effort behind creation inherently increases the value of the product, often overshadowing the content or meaning of the work. Consequently, critiques of AI that focus on the labor behind art are easily commodified, emphasizing the process over substance. The rebellion becomes a tool for the system it sought to oppose, feeding into AI’s development rather than dismantling it.
This narrow focus on process offers the illusion of resistance while leaving the deeper systems of power unchallenged. Artists critiquing AI’s lack of emotional and cultural depth may inadvertently contribute to AI’s refinement. By concentrating on the aesthetics of AI-generated art or the perceived inferiority of machine-made creations, they miss the larger issue: the commodification of creativity itself. This oversight allows capitalism to co-opt their critique, turning it into part of the system’s self-improvement mechanism. The critique ends up reinforcing the very system it intended to disrupt.
The danger of this myopic rebellion lies in its failure to address the underlying power structures that enable AI’s continuous improvement. The conversation remains confined to surface-level distinctions—such as handmade versus machine-made art—without confronting the broader implications of AI’s growing role in creativity.
The irony here is stark: the act of critiquing AI’s limitations ends up enhancing the technology. What began as a challenge to the system becomes a tool for further optimization. The rebellion, rather than disrupting the system, contributes to it, making the system more efficient at producing imitations of human creativity.
This phenomenon is not unique to AI; it reflects a broader societal trend. Capitalism has an uncanny ability to absorb critiques and turn them into marketable products. Rebellions originally intended to challenge the status quo are softened and commodified, their sharp edges dulled. The initial message about the value of creativity and the dangers of superficial AI-generated art becomes secondary to the process of commodification and optimization.
The lesson here is that rebellion must go beyond the surface. It needs to challenge not just the methods of creation but the systems of power and commodification that determine the value of creativity. Otherwise, resistance risks being absorbed, neutralized, and turned into just another product in capitalism’s cycle of consumption and profit.