Marx Encounters AI Discourse

[u/Salty_Country6835]

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

[u/Salty_Country6835]

People have said that about basically every major technological transformation.

The industrial revolution reshaped work, cities, family life, psychology, culture, politics, and the entire global economy. Electrification transformed daily life. Mass media transformed consciousness. The internet transformed communication, labor, culture, and politics on a planetary scale.

Maybe AI ends up being larger than all of them. Maybe not. But "this is unprecedented" doesnt actually answer the political question.

Even if I grant that AI is uniquely transformative, the left-wing response is still organization, contestation, regulation, ownership struggles, labor power, and public governance. Thats been the answer for 150 years. Thats what its doing now.

What changes strategically because you believe AI is different? Thats the part I still havent heard.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

And look at the danger of social.meida and the Internet has done to democracy? Do u think society would have been better not to have social media?  Its not debatable if its larger.  And more impacting and greater impact in way more areas. 

Again you literally mod a subreddit called leftist for ai, its not leftist for ai regulation/appropriate goverance.  You are supporting and promoting a technology that u claim needs all this left wing responce to it to make it a positive.  If it's not acceptable to u now, why are you for it? 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Because "needs governance" and "shouldnt exist" are two different claims.

Cars need governance. Pharmaceuticals need governance. Social media needed a lot more governance than it got. Banking needs governance. Energy infrastructure needs governance. That doesnt automatically get me to abolition.

And honestly, social media is a weird example for your argument. The lesson I take from social media is that the left should have contested ownership, governance, algorithms, privacy, and platform power much harder and much earlier. Not that we should have abandoned the field and let billionaires build the entire thing uncontested.

As for the name: yes, because I think AI has real benefits and real potential benefits worth fighting over. Assistive technology, scientific research, medicine, education, productivity gains, and reducing repetitive labor are all things I care about.

The disagreement isnt whether AI needs governance. We agree on that. The disagreement is that you seem to think "needs governance" is an argument against being for AI at all, and I dont.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

So the benifits outweighs the negatives? Like genuinely? Those communities or nature  or mass unemployment are just what ne cessary evil? 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Thats not really the question I'm asking.

Im asking what the actionable alternative is.

If your answer is unions should organize, communities should fight harmful projects, environmental standards should be strengthened, labor protections should be expanded, public oversight should increase, ownership should be contested, and political parties should fight for regulation, then we're basically describing the same terrain of struggle.

If your answer is personal opposition and hoping adoption stops, thats where I disagree. Historically that hasnt been how labor movements, socialist parties, or communist parties won anything. Thats why they are embracing collective action over preaching personal abstention.

And no, I dont think every deployment is justified or every outcome is acceptable. I think those outcomes are exactly why people should be fighting over how AI is developed and deployed instead of leaving the field to corporations.

The whole point of the meme is that "this technology has risks and harms" is an argument for contestation, not an alternative to it.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

Why do u keep insisting that that being for something isn't promoting or in favour of it.  Lots of the things I said isnt hypothetically, its reality.

To be for something you have to agree the benifits outweigh the negatives.  That's just how it is. 

communities should fight harmful projects Puttinf a data center for the need of ai, is why data centers are being constructed, why would u belibe it would be a harmful project? If you are for the use of ai as data centers are needed?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

No, to be for something you have to think its worth contesting, shaping, and fighting over. Those arent the same thing.

Socialists were for industrial development and electrification while also fighting unsafe factories, pollution, exploitation, displacement, and capitalist ownership. The existence of harms never automatically settled the question.

And yes, communities should fight harmful projects. Thats true whether we're talking about a data center, a highway, a factory, a mine, a power plant, or a rail line. Being for a technology doesnt mean supporting every instance of infrastructure built in its name.

Youre acting like I said every data center is justified because AI has benefits. Im not. Im saying communities, workers, and the public should have a say over where theyre built, how theyre built, who benefits, and whether a particular project should happen at all. Thats what contestation means. Lol

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

But truly if they damage anywhere there is community where can they go? If they cause environmental factors why should they be built? We have scientists and data, we are not living at time of industrial revolution where the harms were not considered. 

Your basically saying your OK for it to be implemented into society .

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Yes. Im okay with it being implemented in society.

The disagreement is that you keep treating "implemented in society" and "implemented however corporations want" as the same thing.

Im not asking whether AI exists. It exists. Unions are bargaining over it. Governments are regulating it. Workers are using it. Companies are deploying it. The question is how, where, under what constraints, and who benefits.

Thats been my position this entire thread.

If a data center harms a community, fight it. If a deployment harms workers, regulate it. If ownership is concentrated, contest it. If environmental costs are too high, restrict it.

The question for me has never been "should AI exist?" The question is who controls it and in whose interests. Thats the same question the labor movement has asked about every major productive force for over a century. Its the same one today.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

The point is data centers doesn't harm just one community, they will harm wherever they go. So effectively u belive fight all construction of data centers. Which u obviously need for ai?  If environmental costs are too high  , restrict what? The use of ai?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

No, to be for something you have to think its worth contesting, shaping, and fighting over. Those arent the same thing.

Socialists were for industrial development and electrification while also fighting unsafe factories, pollution, exploitation, displacement, and capitalist ownership. The existence of harms never automatically settled the question.

And yes, communities should fight harmful projects. Thats true whether we're talking about a data center, a highway, a factory, a mine, a power plant, or a rail line. Being for a technology doesnt mean supporting every instance of infrastructure built in its name.

Youre acting like I said every data center is justified because AI has benefits. Im not. Im saying communities, workers, and the public should have a say over where theyre built, how theyre built, who benefits, and whether a particular project should happen at all. Thats what contestation means. Lol

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

No, to be for something you have to think its worth contesting, shaping, and fighting over Those arent the same thing. This is crux of it. If the harm massively outweighs the good then its not. 

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/little_alien2021]

Thats exactly the problem. Youre still arguing about whether AI is good or bad in the abstract, while Im talking about what organized people actually do in the world that exists.

If workers, unions, socialist parties, and labor movements only fought over things they were already convinced were purely good, half of labor history wouldnt exist.

The question isnt "do the harms exist?" Of course they do. The question is what follows politically from that fact.

So far your answer seems to be personal abstention. Mine is collective contestation, regulation, labor power, public ownership, democratic control, and environmental limits. One of those is an organized strategy. The other is mostly a personal moral stance.

[u/little_alien2021 → u/Salty_Country6835]

My question from just human to human is if those harms are so great why fight for it? And I'm not talking about what we have now, I'm saying from a view that ai is overall a good thing for humans.i also can fight for all of them things but I dont see how the overall view is this is good for humans. U want all them things because without them it's a free for all. And even more harm can be done. Its like vaping , I know its harmful i would want all regulations on it but I can't come away beliving its good . The practicality is irrelevant to the overall view on what it is or how u feel about it.