AI and the Political Divide: Why the Left's Fear of AI Art Might Be Misplaced

This is the fourth piece in our series on AI art. In the previous pieces, we explored how refusing to disclose AI use can be an act of civil disobedience, the misinformation surrounding AI, and the pitfalls of relying on copyright law. Now, we’re diving into the political split around AI art—how it’s strangely divided along party lines and why the left’s stance might need a second look.

It’s kind of ironic when you think about it. The political left, which usually champions accessibility, equity, and democratizing resources, has taken a largely resistant stance towards AI art—a tool that could do precisely those things. AI can provide access to creative tools for those who don’t have formal training, expensive software, or years to hone niche skills. And yet, the loudest opposition to AI art often comes from those who, on paper, are supposed to be all for leveling the playing field.

The Fear of Job Loss and the Exploitation Narrative

One of the big reasons for this resistance comes from a concern for workers—artists, illustrators, and others who fear losing their livelihoods. This is an important concern, no doubt. People’s ability to earn a living shouldn’t be compromised by the adoption of any technology. But here's the thing: this fear, while understandable, often overlooks the real problem—how the technology is used, not the technology itself. The left should be focusing on building structures that protect workers from exploitation, regardless of what tools they use.

The original Luddites weren’t against machines. They were against the use of machines to exploit labor and undercut skilled workers. AI art is like any other tool—it can be used to liberate people from menial tasks or it can be used to exploit and replace them. The difference is in how we choose to integrate these technologies. With the right frameworks in place—universal basic income, proper regulation, and fair compensation—AI doesn’t have to be a job killer; it can be a job enhancer, allowing artists to do more, earn more, and spend more time on what they love rather than what pays the bills.

Gatekeeping the Creative Process

Another big factor here is the romanticization of the artist’s struggle. There’s a deep cultural narrative around the “purity” of creativity—that art should be the product of raw human toil, soul-baring effort, and long hours of labor. AI somehow disrupts this idea, because it allows people to bypass some of the manual steps in the process. But this narrative is more about gatekeeping than about art itself.

The truth is, not everyone has the privilege to spend endless hours perfecting their craft. Not everyone has the resources for an art education, or the freedom to create without worrying about rent. AI, in this sense, democratizes creativity. It gives more people access to the tools that help them bring their visions to life. Isn’t that something the left, with its emphasis on equity, should be celebrating?

By dismissing AI art, we’re effectively saying that only those with enough time, money, and resources deserve to be called “real” artists. That’s not progressivism. That’s just gatekeeping wrapped in romantic ideals.

The Hypocrisy of Copyright and Capitalist Structures

The left’s reliance on copyright as a way to shut down AI art also runs counter to its own values. Copyright law, as we discussed before, doesn’t actually protect artists—it protects those who can afford to own art. It’s a tool of capitalist control, not creative empowerment. Leaning on it to argue against AI art simply reinforces the same exploitative systems that have always kept artists down. Instead of falling back on outdated copyright laws, we should be looking for new ways to ensure artists are compensated—ways that aren’t tied to the capitalist ownership of creative output.

AI offers an opportunity to rethink how we value and compensate creative work. Instead of focusing on owning every brushstroke, what if we focused on shared benefits, ongoing compensation, and community value? What if we saw art not as a product to be hoarded, but as a contribution to a cultural commons?

A Missed Opportunity for Inclusivity

The irony is that AI has the potential to bring more voices into the creative world—voices that have been historically excluded. Imagine a young queer kid who can’t afford art school but finds their way to express themselves through AI tools. Imagine someone with a disability that makes traditional forms of art inaccessible, but who can now create because AI is available to them. AI, used ethically, could amplify marginalized voices, create more diverse art, and challenge the very gatekeeping structures that have made the art world so exclusive.

The left’s fear of AI, then, feels like a missed opportunity. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, we could be embracing it as a chance to build a more inclusive creative landscape—one where more people can participate, more voices can be heard, and more artists can thrive. But that means shifting the focus away from fear and towards thoughtful integration. It means demanding that companies using AI compensate artists, that tech be developed with ethics in mind, and that we as a society value creativity not by how it’s made, but by what it brings to our world.

In our next piece, we'll explore what an equitable world that embraces AI art might look like—how we could restructure our society to make creativity accessible to all, without fear, gatekeeping, or exploitation. It may all be fantasy, but it's a good one.

Don't believe me! Always fact-check everything you read on the internet through multiple sources. Here's a list to help.