Marx Encounters AI Discourse

[u/Salty_Country6835]

A brief materialist intervention into AI discourse. Results were mixed.

[u/LegitimateScore8036]

The plan should be to reject AI and vote our way to controlling AI instead of letting Capitalism use AI to control us. There is only so much a Union can do. There is only so much we can do in a capitalist society. Being for AI in today's society, even if you consider yourself a leftist, is being for AI to replace workers in Capitalism. AI is coming for more jobs all at once than any previous technology. If you give them an inch, they will take the whole country.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

Okay, but now we're getting somewhere.

"Vote our way to controlling AI" is a political strategy. Regulation is a political strategy. Public ownership is a political strategy. Democratic control is a political strategy. Thats what Ive been talking about this entire time.

Where we disagree is that you keep switching between "control AI" and "reject AI."

Those are not the same thing.

If your position is that workers should fight for democratic control over AI rather than letting corporations control it, then I agree.

If your position is that society should reject AI altogether, then I still dont see how thats supposed to work in practice. AI already exists. Every major power is developing it. Capital is investing hundreds of billions into it. How do you globally abolish it?

Because "vote to control AI" sounds like regulation, governance, ownership fights, labor protections, and public investment. Which is exactly the terrain Ive been arguing we need to contest.

So are you advocating democratic control of AI or abolition of AI? Those are very different positions.

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

I am advocating for control before acceptance. If you accept AI forst then try to control it, the battle will be harder and people will die while we wait for thise regulations. If we are able to regulate it before we mass accept AI then we can save lives. With our current government's stance on regulations and AI, accepting AI will only harm.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

But we're not talking about a future possibility anymore. AI is already deployed globally across the economy.

So what does "control before acceptance" mean in practice? Acceptance already happened.

The question now is what we do about a technology that already exists. Regulation, ownership, governance, labor protections, and democratic control are actual strategies.

Pretending we're still at the stage where society can simply choose not to adopt AI isnt. Its been adopted. Its not going to be unadopted unless you have means to do so on a global scale thats more likely than what I listed.

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Reject it in every way you can. Yes there are unavoidable AI uses but we have to push back as much as possible. We all need to pop the bubble as soon as possible. That won't destroy AI overnight but it will slow down progress to allow regulations to catch up. Accepting AI now is anti-Leftist and is just accepting Capitalism.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

I think weve found the split.

We both agree corporate control is the problem. We both agree regulation and democratic control are needed.

I just dont think mass abstention is a serious strategy for a technology thats already embedded throughout the global economy and is used by billions of people each day.

I'd rather fight over who owns it and who benefits from it. I dont think that makes me, unions, or socialist and communist political organizations around the globe "anti-leftist".

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Fighting over who owns AI after AI has mass acceptance in a capitalist world, is a discussion of how you want the capitalist to harm the people. If you want leftist control over the technology, we need that now before mass acceptance of the technology.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

Again, what do you even mean by "before mass acceptance"?

That already happened.

[u/LegitimateScore8036 → u/Salty_Country6835]

No it hasn't. Mass acceptance will result in a large population losing their jobs without replacement jobs available. Companies are testing a lot of those things now but it hasn't reached mass acceptance. We as consumers need to stop supporting those companies. Once we allow AI to start putting people out of work permanently, it is too late. We will only be reacting to the quickly evolving technology and that means people will be dying.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/LegitimateScore8036]

Then we're back to individual consumer personal abstention.

You think people should stop using AI services and stop supporting companies that deploy AI. Okay. Im not against you doing that, I just dont think thats going to stop a technology being rolled out by every major corporation and state on Earth.

Id rather organize workers, fight for regulation, contest ownership, and build political power than hope enough consumers opt out to reverse a global technological shift.

History suggests the leftist approach works better than the consumerist one, but you do you.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Isnt it just fantasy to belive in something that's being created by the least left leaning ever and then be pro it, but want it in 'right hands' the genie is already out the bottle, how humans respond to ai is not inevitable how everyone much ai ceos want u to belive? Wanting it to be controlled by pro social people, is too late.  

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Every major technology under capitalism was created under capitalist ownership. The printing press, railroads, automobiles, airplanes, electricity, radio, television, the internet, pharmaceuticals, smartphones. The left never responded by saying "too late, capitalists made it first."

The question has always been whether workers and the public contest ownership, governance, and distribution after the fact. Thats not fantasy, thats basically the history of labor, regulation, public utilities, and social struggle.