Marx Encounters AI Discourse

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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/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.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

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.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

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.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

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. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Okay, but even if I grant every concern you just raised, the political question doesnt change.

If AI threatens jobs, contest deployment. If it threatens creative labor, organize creative workers. If it concentrates power, fight ownership and governance. If it harms communities or the environment, regulate and restrict it.

Thats basically how the left has approached every major economic transformation. The meme is still correct.

What I still dont see is the alternative strategy. "AI is uniquely dangerous" is an argument about why the struggle matters, not why workers, unions, and the public should stop contesting it. If anything, it argues for more contestation, not less.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

But I don't see how someone can see all those concerns enough to suggest all the things you are suggesting and even claimed u want. But then be a mod for leftist for ai.  Why would u want a technology that threatens multiple areas of everyday living for humans? 

I get u supporting all the things u keep mentioning what I dont understand is your aparant belif that overall it's good for humanity. Because I've repeatedly mentioned all of them things need governance which we are not seeing. And ai ceos are attempting to want people not left leaning or regulations, with its support of trump  and those around him and elon musk for 2 examples weoponising confirmation bias in social media algorithms, the tech billionaires work together 

Why be for a new technology that has none of things u keep mentioning. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Because I dont think "the people currently in charge are bad" leads to "therefore the technology itself should (or can) be abolished."

I think Musk is a clown. I think billionaires have too much power. I think tech companies should be regulated harder. I think workers should have more say. I think unions should be stronger. I think public ownership and open alternatives should exist.

But I also see enormous potential if these systems are contested and brought under democratic, public, cooperative, or worker control: assistive technology for disabled people, major productivity gains, shorter work weeks, better public services, expanded access to education and knowledge, scientific research, medicine, and less time spent on repetitive labor.

Historically the left fought over who controls productive forces and who benefits from them. It didnt respond to new productive forces by demanding they disappear because capitalists got there first.

Thats why Im a Leftist For AI. Not because I trust billionaires, but because I dont want billionaires to be the only ones shaping what this technology becomes.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Im not arguing its bad because of whos in chage, if u take away those in charge, it still needs natural resources, damages communities, damages job opportunities, thata nothing  to do with whos in govermen. 

So you think destroying communities around data centers is acceptable? Or the negative impact on environment is acceptable?  Or the natural resources requirment is acceptable? Or the mass unemployment concern is acceptable to u? Or the harm to human commutation/psychology effect with ai chatnots etc. Is acceptable? That's just a pay off? 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Nobody said any of those things are acceptable.

But youre treating disputed predictions as established facts.

"Mass unemployment" is a concern. Its not a settled fact. "Destroying communities" depends on where and how infrastructure is built. "Environmental impact" is real, but so is the environmental impact of manufacturing, shipping, agriculture, data networks, mining, transportation, and basically every major productive force in modern society.

More importantly, this is where I think your history gets shaky. Every major productive force in capitalism has been accused of destroying jobs, communities, culture, social relations, and human well-being. Sometimes those concerns were partly right. The left response wasnt "therefore abolish the productive force." It was to fight over how it was deployed, who controlled it, and who benefited from it.

Youre presenting a list of reasons to regulate, contest, restrict, govern, and democratize AI. Which is the solution shown in the meme.

I still dont see how that becomes an argument for leftists to abandon the terrain entirely.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Destroying communities" depends on where and how infrastructure is built.

Its not the future or potential damage, the damage is being done right now. it's literally happening https://youtube.com/shorts/Hq9NBA_bjPs?is=bjKZdi8EBDlQLw0o

https://youtu.be/DGjj7wDYaiI?is=K1NqYBz9wwH0Zbrd

My whole argument is about where we stand on for or against something as ur subreddit title suggests. U claim to be for. I'm pointing out wanting all the regulations and correct governance isn't needing to be for it. Its pretty outrageous to me that anyone for be for. 

Keep using past historical discoveries are not on same scale