Cover art by me.

Art and music are facing a difficult moment. Major companies are gathering millions of images, texts, and music tracks to train generative models, often without creators’ consent or compensation. Then they sell tools that can produce new images and music, sometimes deliberately imitating the work of the very people whose creations helped build those models.

What angers me isn’t the idea of new technology. It’s who profits from it, and at whose expense. Artists spend years developing their skills and bring their own experience to their work. Corporations treat that work as free raw material. Creators may have no way to opt out, no share of the profits, and no clear answer about whether their work was used at all.

“Democratizing creativity” is a convenient corporate slogan. Companies call it democratization when they take other people’s work, turn it into a commercial product, and keep the power to decide who can use it and on what terms. That doesn’t give people more power. It concentrates power in the hands of companies that own the models, the servers, the data, and the platforms.

We’re told that now anyone can “create.” But being able to press a button isn’t the same as having control over the tool, sharing in its profits, or having a say in the rules. Artists are expected to accept that their work may have been used without permission, then compete with products built from that same work. Meanwhile, corporations get a scalable business, paying customers, and a feel-good story about progress. How convenient: call appropriation innovation, call pushing workers out efficiency, and call not asking permission democratization.

If this is really about democratizing creativity, why don’t creators get a say in whether their work can be used? Why aren’t they given transparency and compensation? Why does “making creativity accessible to everyone” so often mean that a company gains control while the creator loses it?

This isn’t about saying only trained artists should be allowed to use AI, or that everyone needs years of practice before they can express themselves. The question is why corporations sell access to tools built on the large-scale use of other people’s work while offering those creators no meaningful choice and no fair share.

Democratization without creators’ consent or control isn’t creative freedom. It’s appropriation with a nicer marketing slogan.

Hi, I don’t know if there’s been a similar post here or how appropriate this is, but I’d like to share my opinion on AI.

Recent news about mass layoffs in IT, manufacturing, and the service sector, driven by automation and AI, made me wonder: where is the world heading if wesimply let this process continue unchecked?

We live under capitalism, where the economy is largely based on people exchanging the results of their labor. one person produces a good or provides a service, earns money, and uses that money to pay for the work of others. money replaced direct barter and made this exchange much more convenient.

But what happens when human labor is gradually replaced by machines?

For a company owner, automation is extremely attractive. A robot does not need a salary, paid leave, sick days, or a human resources department. It can work around the clock, potentially lowering production costs and increasing profits.

For now, someone who loses their job can still move into another field. But what happens when automation affects most professions? The argument that “new technologies have always created new jobs” does not seem entirely convincing to me.

A calculator, a machine, or a car mostly helped people perform their work more efficiently. Modern AI and robotics are increasingly different. They do not merely assist workers, but directly compete with them and replace them. Robots are becoming capable of interacting with the physical world and performing increasingly complex tasks.

Consider a small society of three people. One catches fish, another make clothes materials, and the third builds houses. Each person specializes in a different kind of work, and they exchange the results. Money acts as an intermediary. The fisher sells fish, earns money, and buys a house. The builder buys clothes, and the person making clothes buys fish.

Now imagine that each of them owns a robot capable of doing their entire job. One robot catches fish, another builds houses, and the third produces clothes. Technically, these people can still trade with one another. But where does their money come from?

If the robots are privately owned, the three people can sell their products to one another. However, the society will quickly become oversaturated. One person does not need thousands of houses, tons of fish, or an endless supply of clothes. Production becomes easy, but there may not be enough people with the income or desire to buy everything being produced.

Now imagine that all three robots belong to one company. That company receives most of the income because it owns the automated production system. The other people lose their wages and can no longer afford to buy the products. The company can produce more than ever, but by replacing its workers, it also destroys the purchasing power needed to sell those products.

This is already visible in smaller ways. Self-checkout machines allow stores to serve roughly the same number of customers with one or two employees instead of ten. The others have to look for different jobs. But what happens when those jobs are automated too?

Some people propose a universal basic income funded by taxes on corporations or automated systems. But why would company owners voluntarily agree to support people who have become economically “unnecessary”? Who would force them to pay those taxes? And what would society look like if most people were no longer needed as workers but were still needed as consumers?

I do not think the main problem is technology itself. The problem is trying to fit rapidly advancing technology into an economic system built around human labor and wages.

If labor stops being the main way people receive money and access resources, capitalism in its current form may face a serious crisis.

So what do you think will happen? Will we develop a new economic system, introduce some form of universal basic income, or will automation simply lead to even greater inequality and concentration of power among the owners of technology?