Artificial intelligence is not the enemy of artists. The real threat, as always, is capitalism. AI, when properly developed and ethically applied, holds enormous potential—especially in the realm of accessibility. For disabled artists, writers, and creators, AI tools offer new ways to interact with and produce work. Text-to-speech, image generation for mobility-limited users, language processing for communication assistance—these aren’t threats to creativity. They’re tools that expand who gets to participate in the creative process.

But under capitalism, these same tools are turned against the very communities they could empower. Liberals often miss this. They see the effects—corporate layoffs, mass-produced content, job displacement—but blame the technology itself, not the system in which it operates. They fail to understand that AI is not inherently exploitative; capitalism is. Capitalism incentivizes using any new tool not for collective good, but for profit maximization—regardless of the human cost.

Many artists understandably fear AI, and their concerns are real. But often, the discourse is framed incorrectly. AI is accused of “stealing” art, when in fact it functions like many established forms in the history of aesthetics: it imitates, samples, and synthesizes from a body of existing work. This is not theft—it is what all art does. Music evolves through sampling and reinterpretation. Literature draws on myth, history, and structure. Even classical painting traditions relied on shared motifs and apprenticeships. The real problem arises when corporations use AI to mass-produce derivative content while cutting off the original artists from compensation or credit. That’s not AI’s fault—that’s capitalism exploiting artists once again.

This isn’t new. Capitalism has always treated technological shifts as opportunities to reduce labor costs and devalue creative work. When photography emerged, painters were told they were obsolete. When the loom revolutionized textile production, sewing and embroidery were devalued. Photoshop, digital tablets, and CGI faced similar backlash from traditionalists and from industries looking to cut costs. Each time, it wasn’t the technology that harmed artists—it was the economic system weaponizing that technology against them.

Today’s panic about AI follows the same pattern. But the lesson isn’t to reject the tools—it’s to fight the system that misuses them. The goal should be to democratize access to AI and ensure artists are respected, protected, and paid. We need open-source models, transparent datasets, ethical training standards, and union protections—not a reactionary stance against the tools themselves.

The problem is cultural. Under capitalism, art is treated as a product, not as a human expression of meaning, critique, and connection. Until we address the conditions that commodify art and pit creators against machines, we will keep fighting the wrong battles. AI isn’t here to replace artists—capitalism is trying to. And if we don’t redirect the conversation, we risk helping it succeed.