AI Image Generation: A Tool to Liberate, Not Demonize

Since the emergence of generative AI image tools like MidJourney, Stable Diffusion or DALL-E, debates have become polarized. On one side, techno-optimists celebrate a creative revolution; on the other, critics denounce a threat to artists, data exploitation, or an environmental disaster. Yet rejecting this technology outright, without distinguishing between its capitalist applications and emancipatory potential, amounts to adopting a reactionary stance - betraying the very principles of progressive thought.

The Real Problems: Exploitation and Environment

There's no denying that generative AI poses major problems today. The models are trained on billions of images often scraped without consent, exploiting the work of artists who receive no compensation. Moreover, the carbon footprint of large models is significant, raising questions about their mass deployment in a climate emergency.

These criticisms are legitimate, but they primarily concern the capitalist appropriation of the technology, not the technology itself. By targeting only the tool, we risk missing the real battle: the one against tech giants who privatize AI's benefits while externalizing its social and ecological costs.

The Emancipatory Potential of Generative AI

Demonizing generative AI means ignoring its subversive and liberating uses. For example:

• Accessibility: For artists with disabilities, these tools help overcome physical limitations and explore new forms of creation.
• Deconstructing biases: Well-designed AI can produce images that challenge gender, racial or class stereotypes, offering a counter-power to dominant representations.
• Artistic democratization: By reducing technical barriers, these tools allow people excluded from traditional circuits to express themselves visually.

Rejecting these possibilities on principle in the name of "artistic purity" reproduces the attitude of 19th-century conservatives who rejected photography because it "killed painting." History has shown that each new medium, initially seen as a threat, ultimately enriches creation.

The Left Should Fight the System, Not the Tool

A genuine left-wing critique shouldn't reject technology, but demand its socialization. This means:

• Strict dataset regulation, with compensation for artists whose work is used.
• Open-source and community development, to prevent monopolization by a few companies.
• Energy transition of tech infrastructure, to make AI compatible with ecological imperatives.

By settling for blanket condemnation of generative AI, some progressive movements fall into the trap of technophobic conservatism. The tool itself isn't reactionary - its use under capitalism is. The left's task should be to harness these technologies as levers of emancipation, rather than leaving their control to private interests alone.

Conclusion: Neither Fetishization Nor Rejection - A Fight for Collective Appropriation

The challenge isn't to choose between naive adulation and categorical rejection, but to build a framework where generative AI serves the common good. Artists deserve protection, digital workers deserve dignified conditions, and the planet demands sustainable models. But this won't happen by smashing the machines: it will happen by smashing the system that turns them into instruments of profit.

The left must avoid the purity trap and remember that its historical role has never been to hinder progress, but to liberate it.