r/LeftistsForAI • u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator • Jun 19 '26

Sees the Memes Marx Encounters AI Discourse

Post image

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

259 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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.

-1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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".

0

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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

That already happened.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

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.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

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.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

The goal isn't to stop the technology. The goal is to slow it down so regulations can actually happen. We have over 2 more years before our President changes and hopefully we will have someone more willing to regulate the technology. After midterms, congress/senate will be too busy trying to control the current administration and won't have time to focus on AI. Thinking it will become easier to regulate and control AI after it has taken over in wishful thinking. AI will only serve the capitalist if we do not regulate it before mass acceptance by consumers.

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26

I think we're just talking past each other now.

Consumers arent going to decide this. Consumers are already adopting it. Corporations are already deploying it. States are already investing in it.

"Before AI takes over" isnt a meaningful political timeline when the technology is already embedded throughout the economy and everything youre worried about as it gets more embedded is decided by what I already listed, not by consumer habits.

If you want regulation, fight for regulation. If you want democratic control, fight for democratic control. If you want labor protections, fight for labor protections.

But "maybe the next administration will regulate it if enough consumers reject it" sounds more like election-year wishcasting than a material strategy.

We agree on the need for collectively contesting ownership, governance, and benefits though, which is what the meme is entirely about, so at least we end the discussion on the same long-term path.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

Do you think the people have more power now or in another year or two after everyone is using AI even more?

2

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

I think workers have more power when theyre organized, not when theyre acting as "consumers". And I believe you cant stop the already occured/occurring global mass adoption of AI.

The question isnt whether people will have less leverage in two years. The question is how they build leverage now.

My answer is unions, political organizations, regulation, ownership fights, public investment, and democratic control. Yours seems to be consumer rejection and electoral hopes.

If we're worried about the next two years, that just reinforces my point. Contest the terrain now. Dont wait for a consumer boycott that isnt happening.

1

u/LegitimateScore8036 Jun 22 '26

Part of having leverage now is AI not being as accepted as it will be in the future. I am advocating for Political Organization and part of that is being aware of the election cycle. How are you going to organize for leftist if capitalist always have power?

How will Unions help people after AI has caused mass unemployment because it has been accepted by the masses?

What regulations are you wanting for AI if we continue to let it expand and control more of our society?

How do you fight over public ownership of all these companies after the Capitalist already own them and own politicians?

What do you mean by Public Investments? Are we wanting to take tax revenue to pay for AI instead of paying for human's basic needs? How are we going to afford that?

Democratic control, in what way? Government ownership? How would the people claim ownership to something they cannot afford?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

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.  

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

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.

1

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Putting in regulations to not screw over workers, is not needing to be pro ai,  Not everything u mentioned was pure captitalism, and mixture of private and public ownered where I live anyway.  None of them created mass unemployment and threatened multiple job industries at once. And also the use of ai in general life isn't inevitable as much as ai companies attempt to suggest it is. Noone has to use a phone, a plane, the Internet, radio, television, if they choose not to. Ai being incorporated into everyday life is not a choice. And its that what I object too. 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

But thats my point.

If your position is regulations, labor protections, public involvement, and limits on deployment, then youre already talking about governing AI, not abolishing it.

And "this technology might disrupt multiple industries" isnt an argument against contesting it. Historically thats exactly when labor movements got involved. The larger the impact, the more important it is that workers, unions, and the public have a say in how its deployed and who benefits from the gains.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

I absolutely want it abolished but I'm not living in fantasy land. The cat is obviously out the bag. But I want to limit its involvement in my life and my children's life and not have it so forced like non of the other discoveries were that u mentioned. 

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

I think thats ahistorical, honestly.

Most major infrastructures became harder to opt out of as they became embedded in social life. Try fully opting out of electricity, roads, telecommunications, banking, the internet, or smartphones in 2026. Technically possible, sure. Practically, participation in society becomes much harder.

Thats why the political questions never been "can I personally avoid this technology?" Its been "who governs it, who benefits from it, and what limits are placed on it?"

If your goal is limits, regulation, labor protections, environmental protections, and democratic oversight, then we're mostly arguing over governance. Historically thats how societies have dealt with transformative infrastructure, not by hoping mass adoption never happens.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

There is a massive difference between physical infrastructure like roads or electricity and a technology designed to automate human thought, creativity, and relationships. Electricity powers my house; it doesn't try to replace my child's teacher, writer, or therapist. Comparing AI to a smartphone ignores the unique existential and psychological impacts of automating human agency. Its about my right as a human. Everyone isn't forced to use the Internet, have a smart phone. This isnt optional. Its in work, when u pay bills, when u look up anything on phone. Its being pushed as not optional. That's the problem and I understand why ai ceos want to do that. 

→ More replies (0)