No.491194
A few things:
Firstly, you're an adult. Not everyone you see saying a certain thing represents a monolithic "left."
Secondly, the premise here isn't really correct. The idea that opposition to ""AI"" is purely about defending copyright is inaccurate, and the idea that there even is any meaningful opposition to copyright in general is false. IP isn't on the verge of going away, in fact it's pretty much more enforced than ever, and the people who deal in IP for a living are not under threat; but those people are not artists, they are patent lawyers, large corporations, etc. The idea that ""AI"" is a threat to this model at all is delusional; ""AI"" art is simply allowing the same entities which already are the primary beneficiaries of IP law to make even more money off of other people's creative labor than they already do, whether or not those who they profit off of are making a profit themselves. There is no meaningful opposition to IP from the corporations pushing these overhyped programs, they merely want artists to unilaterally waive rights which they themselves categorically refuse to waive, so that the corporate powers can take an even larger cut of the profit.
If you look at this critically, and don't just take the marketing as the final word, this is very clear.
There is no "democratizing" at play here, for the same reason that "right to work laws" don't "democratize" the labor force. This is a consolidation of even more monopolistic control in the hands of rentseeking "tech" elites.
I say all of this, and still I'll add a third thing; I'll elaborate on the real repulsion to ""AI"" a bit as it relates to me, because although I've explained how things are in relation to other people, I'd like to add that I do have my own concern and disregard. Art, whatever you might personally think about it, is expression. It doesn't matter what you specifically think of someone else's art, it doesn't matter what motivation they had to create it, there is both expression and discipline involved in the creation of art. Outsourcing it to lines of code sold by Sam Altman seems like a grotesque failure to embrace what is joyful about the human soul; it is not hard labor, it is not dull paperwork, it is expression, and I would rather see a poorly produced stick figure made by a real human being than a "fancy" corporate synthesis of what "professional" art is supposed to look like in order to appeal to humans. Every critique anyone ever had of dull corporate art created for advertising applies doubly here, as the human is factored out to the fullest possible extent, a degree of alienation from humanness which was once impossible.
Instead of taking some dull or painful necessary labor, automating it, and socializing the profit, "tech" capitalists have, through trade in others' labor, taken something fun and expressive, created an automated facsimile of it to spare users the joy of expression, and taken the profits wholly for themselves. You will express yourself within their confines, you will see and hear what they want you to see and hear, your soul is theirs and they will charge you rent for your own conception of self. That's very sad to me.