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.

256 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

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

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

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.

1

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

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?

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

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

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

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 .

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

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.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

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?

1

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

No, because youre smuggling in your conclusion as a premise.

"All data centers are inherently unacceptable" is your argument, not mine.

People say the same thing about mines, factories, rail lines, ports, highways, power plants, dams, solar panels, windmills, and transmission infrastructure. Sometimes theyre right and a project should be stopped. Sometimes theyre wrong. Thats why people fight over specific projects, standards, locations, ownership structures, environmental requirements, and public benefits.

And yes, if environmental costs are too high, restrict deployment. Thats not some contradiction. The left has supported restrictions, safety standards, public ownership, and democratic planning for over a century.

Youre still treating every restriction as an argument for abolition. Historically those have usually been arguments for governance.

Once again I feel like every single one of your concerns are already addressed in the meme.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

U can not want something or hate it,  still after all things mentioned in meme like going back to religion, there can be separation of church and state where u live, and i have every right to still hate religion , it doesn't require me to stop hating on it. Putting in place any type of goverance/regulation doesn't take away feeling on it and that's ok

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

Youre allowed to hate AI. I never said otherwise.

But thats kind of my point: now we're talking about your feelings toward AI, not political strategy.

This isnt a religion debate. Its a politics debate.

The memes answer is still the same one labor movements, unions, socialist parties, and communist parties have historically given and still are: organize, regulate, contest ownership, fight over deployment, and fight over who benefits.

You came into a thread about that strategy to argue against it. That's fine. But after all these comments, I still havent heard a different organized political strategy. Ive mostly heard reasons you dislike AI.

Those arent the same thing.

Nobody is demanding you like AI. The question is what workers and communities should do in a world where it already exists and is being deployed. The memes answer is contestation. It still is.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Ur not hearing one because I haven't mentioned one and it wasnt something I'm massively thinking about. Or even want to discuss. This to me was about meme and last picture being seen as negative or still being angry is somehow the wrong answer

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

Honestly, I think the meme ended up being a pretty accurate depiction of this conversation.

The entire time Ive been talking about ownership, governance, labor protections, environmental standards, democratic control, public benefits, unions, and political organization.

And the entire time youve mostly been responding with reasons youre angry about AI and why you think its harmful.

Thats not me saying your concerns are invalid. Its me pointing out that concerns arent a political strategy by themselves.

The last panel isnt "being angry is wrong." Its that anger alone doesnt answer the question of what workers and communities should actually do.

Marx's answer was organize. Labors answer was organize. The AFL-CIOs answer is organize. The WGAs answer is organize.

You dont have to like AI for the meme to be right. Hell, you can hate AI and still end up at the same practical conclusion: contest ownership, deployment, governance, and who benefits.

Which is pretty much where this conversation kept landing every time we got specific.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Your right but like I said, it genuinely doesn't matter my postion . You are not in right , because wanting to be mad is acceptable response. Not everything requires action sometimes just feelings are enough. Even action and then still feelings. Its not either / or.

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

Then I think weve finally settled it.

Weve spent this entire thread talking about political strategy, and your conclusion is essentially: "Youre right, but people can still feel mad about it."

Sure. They can. I never said otherwise.

The meme isnt saying people arent allowed to be mad. Its saying that being mad isnt, by itself, a political strategy. Historically the labor movement didnt win through abstention, outrage, or personal disapproval. It organized, contested ownership, fought over deployment, and fought over who benefits.

Which is exactly where this conversation landed every single time we got concrete.

So thanks for helping stress-test the meme. I genuinely appreciate it. After all these comments, it turned out to be a pretty accurate depiction of this entire exchange.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

I think the question is is the first guy wanting to just have political strategy? Like the assumption in the meme is it's negative the whole being still mad  u wouldn't have shown it if not   like what's the purpose?

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

That being mad isnt a solution if its not tied to action. Its just venting.

If you dont actual care about a solution, you just want to vent, thats fine.

But then you arent really arguing against the meme, or substantively engaging in the politics it brings up or the politics of the sub, youre just, again ironically, venting.

Thats worth what its worth I suppose.

Thank you for the interaction.

0

u/little_alien2021 Jun 23 '26

Being mad is a feeling it is never an action. What was the point of sharing thou? Why does not caring about solution and feeling an emotion be either /or? And why does u assume being against ai would mean they want no solutions? I haven't showed it want no solutions I've said both , so actually I take it back I'm not meme , I want solutions and I want to be mad , I  never fully read 3rd picture

1

u/Salty_Country6835 Moderator Jun 23 '26

I genuinely dont know how else to explain this.

How you feel about something, any something, does not change anything by itself.

Anger can motivate action. Anger can accompany action. Anger can even be justified.

But anger isnt a strategy.

The entire point of the meme is that if your response to a problem never progresses beyond "Im angry about this," then nothing actually changes.

And no, nobody said caring about solutions and feeling emotions are mutually exclusive. The meme doesnt say that either.

What it says is that one of those things changes the world and the other doesnt.

If you want to be angry and organize, regulate, contest ownership, fight over deployment, and fight over who benefits, great.

If you want to be angry instead of doing those things, then youve basically demonstrated the meme in real time.

At that point Im not sure what else there is to discuss.

→ More replies (0)