I simply transcribed the video for you since I know you’re not going to watch it. The root of anti-AI narrative on the left is reactionaries pining for the fact that automation has come for the industry that used to be artisanal. The fact that self proclaimed Marxists go along with this narrative is absolutely phenomenal.
People such as yourself are trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy where these tools will only be used by fascists. This technology is not going away, and the only question going forward is who will control it and how it will be used. It’s also quite illustrative to see how people view AI in a sane country like China compared to capitalist hell holes in the west https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/chinese-people-are-the-most-optimistic-about-the-impact-of-ai-on-jobs.html
The root of anti-AI narrative on the left is reactionaries pining for the fact that automation has come for the industry that used to be artisanal.
We have, time and time again, seen the result of Luddism. It can come from a good place. It can be ethically relevant. It can be handled correctly. Yet - time marches on, and the proponents of it are seen as jokes of history.
I have no love for AI slop, but it’s a part of our world and the world my children will grow up in. You better believe I intend to have a good handle of it.
@yogthos You didn’t transcribe it, you got an AI to, and told me “here are some main points”. If that doesn’t speak to the culture of dishonesty and laziness inherent to generative LLMs, I’m not sure what does.
“the root of anti-AI narrative on the left” is an oxymoron that again shows you don’t know what reactionism is. You can’t be both “on the left” and reactionary. Reactionism is opposition to social progress, which AI is frequently at the heart of now. Again, is it “reactionary” to oppose using fascist aesthetic in agitprop? Yes, or no?
The link you gave lumps AI and robotics into one question, which is inherently misleading. Also, we don’t live in China — a country that is still developing and advancing its capitalist means of production and is not yet suffering the decline plaguing the western world. Chinese people aren’t just “more sane” than I am, they have a different material reality. More importantly, I never brought up AI’s effect on labour, so I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say with this link in the first place.
Yeah, I used a tool to automate the task of transcription because I’m not a Luddite.
and told me “here are some main points”. If that doesn’t speak to the culture of dishonesty and laziness inherent to generative LLMs, I’m not sure what does
What are you even bleating about here. I gave you relevant text transcription of the point I was referencing in the video. The only dishonesty and laziness on display here is your own where you refuse to engage with the fact that anti-AI narrative is sponsored by media corps.
“the root of anti-AI narrative on the left” is an oxymoron that again shows you don’t know what reactionism is. You can’t be both “on the left” and reactionary. Reactionism is opposition to social progress, which AI is frequently at the heart of now.
Thanks for confirming that you have no clue what the term “reactionary” means. In Marxist terms, a position is reactionary if it impedes the development of productive forces, even if those forces are disruptive under capitalism. An anti-AI narrative on the left is reactionary because it lacks material analysis of AI as a transformative productive force. Opposing the technology itself rather than its capitalist application leads to resisting technological progress itself. This is a modern version of Luddite resistance to industrialization. It prioritizes existing labor structures over fundamental societal advancement.
Again, is it “reactionary” to oppose using fascist aesthetic in agitprop? Yes, or no?
There is no fascist aesthetic here, it’s just a straw man reactionaries such as yourself use to shut down the discussion.
You didn’t transcribe it, you got an AI to, and told me “here are some main points”. If that doesn’t speak to the culture of dishonesty and laziness inherent to generative LLMs, I’m not sure what does.
I read part of it, it is clearly a video transcription. Seems like you are the dishonest one.
I simply transcribed the video for you since I know you’re not going to watch it. The root of anti-AI narrative on the left is reactionaries pining for the fact that automation has come for the industry that used to be artisanal. The fact that self proclaimed Marxists go along with this narrative is absolutely phenomenal.
People such as yourself are trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy where these tools will only be used by fascists. This technology is not going away, and the only question going forward is who will control it and how it will be used. It’s also quite illustrative to see how people view AI in a sane country like China compared to capitalist hell holes in the west https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/chinese-people-are-the-most-optimistic-about-the-impact-of-ai-on-jobs.html
Artists being proletariat-ized and it’s effect on online discourse has been one hell of a historical moment to observe as MLs
Indeed, we can now see that a lot of people who describe themselves as MLs have an incredibly superficial understanding of theory.
We have, time and time again, seen the result of Luddism. It can come from a good place. It can be ethically relevant. It can be handled correctly. Yet - time marches on, and the proponents of it are seen as jokes of history.
I have no love for AI slop, but it’s a part of our world and the world my children will grow up in. You better believe I intend to have a good handle of it.
Exactly, you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, and cutting ourselves off from new tools will only harm us.
@yogthos You didn’t transcribe it, you got an AI to, and told me “here are some main points”. If that doesn’t speak to the culture of dishonesty and laziness inherent to generative LLMs, I’m not sure what does.
“the root of anti-AI narrative on the left” is an oxymoron that again shows you don’t know what reactionism is. You can’t be both “on the left” and reactionary. Reactionism is opposition to social progress, which AI is frequently at the heart of now. Again, is it “reactionary” to oppose using fascist aesthetic in agitprop? Yes, or no?
The link you gave lumps AI and robotics into one question, which is inherently misleading. Also, we don’t live in China — a country that is still developing and advancing its capitalist means of production and is not yet suffering the decline plaguing the western world. Chinese people aren’t just “more sane” than I am, they have a different material reality. More importantly, I never brought up AI’s effect on labour, so I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say with this link in the first place.
Yeah, I used a tool to automate the task of transcription because I’m not a Luddite.
What are you even bleating about here. I gave you relevant text transcription of the point I was referencing in the video. The only dishonesty and laziness on display here is your own where you refuse to engage with the fact that anti-AI narrative is sponsored by media corps.
Thanks for confirming that you have no clue what the term “reactionary” means. In Marxist terms, a position is reactionary if it impedes the development of productive forces, even if those forces are disruptive under capitalism. An anti-AI narrative on the left is reactionary because it lacks material analysis of AI as a transformative productive force. Opposing the technology itself rather than its capitalist application leads to resisting technological progress itself. This is a modern version of Luddite resistance to industrialization. It prioritizes existing labor structures over fundamental societal advancement.
There is no fascist aesthetic here, it’s just a straw man reactionaries such as yourself use to shut down the discussion.
Is it reactionary to oppose all the people, instead of an elite minority, having access to the means of picture production?
I read part of it, it is clearly a video transcription. Seems like you are the dishonest one.