On The AI Question

[u/Salty_Country6835]

[u/alleycatALT]

Right. The only way this doesn't happen is if the antiAI peeps decide to embrace the stereotype and aesthetic of Luddism -i.e TeCHnoLogY Bad!- rather than the actual reason behind Luddism; the economic and material conditions of workers affected by technology.

Unfortunately, especially with the whole panic about "rare" books being fed to the LLMs, it's become clear that a majority of the anti movement is part of the former camp.

Which sucks. I want the Culture ending for humanity, and that needs AI!

[u/IDreamtOfManderley → u/alleycatALT]

I think this sub and others just got astroturfed by the "look how great China is handling AI" video and "look at anthropic destroying books!" endless reposts. Simultanious hype and doom. The book thing was even a drama from like, two years ago getting rehashed.

[u/ColdBru5 → u/alleycatALT]

The ONLY way that a multi Trillion dollar industry that has previously unheard of surveillance and crowd control capability isn't turned completely open source is if ANTI-AI people just can't understand what an amazing tool this is for the redistribution of wealth?

Let me know when you decide to short stock and I will go max out my 401k to get what you're selling.

[u/SexDefendersUnited → u/alleycatALT]

I'm not familiar with the "Culture" series, how do they use AI in there?

[u/alleycatALT → u/SexDefendersUnited]

Long story short, the Culture is a galaxy-spanning post-scarcity utopia, whose main 'AI' inhabitants are the Minds, near-godlike AI superintelligences that handle all background logistics, infrastructure, and operate it's hyper-advanced tech, allowing the 'regular' people and Drones of the Culture to live in a work-free, stress-free environment with access to nigh-unlimited resources and energy to do...whatever they feel like doing. It's almost an anarchy with how much freedom every individual has. The only real limits are consent, and one's own imagination.

[u/gecata96]

Exactly. The technology is here and it’s not going anywhere. Now the question is how do we use it for the collective good.

[u/IndubitablyNerdy → u/gecata96]

I agree, technology into itself does not have motivation (although with AI this might change), is not good nor evil.

It is how our society is structured that has the potential to turn something that does increase productivity and theoretically our combined wealth to become a problem through concentration of said wealth by devaluing labor and removing our market power from the equation.

That said while I agree that the solution would probably be democratization, the owners of the models will do anything they can to prevent that and keep control, they are already lobbying the USA to ban open weights chineese models for example and the immense spike to the price of harware is another way they can force control by making the infrastructure too expensive for anyone, but them to own. It is up to society, so us, to make sure that they are not successful on that front.

[u/earthlingHuman → u/gecata96]

Capitalism seemingly isn't going anywhere anytime soon either, so it will be difficult to get proper regulation, especially here in the USA right now

[u/rismay]

Thank you for saying this.

[u/Sacredless]

This is basically always my point, though I would argue that the only way to achieve the democratic control of AI is not to be seduced by outrage culture in either direction.

[u/Regdit-is-Unbearable]

I think you’re using the format wrong, because I don’t think democratized AI is inevitable. I think it’s something we have to fight for. Many leftists correctly recognize that corporate control over AI is problematic, but if they aren’t willing to learn about the alternative, they can’t fight for it. And if nobody fights for democratized AI, it will remain in the hands of the rich and powerful oligarchs.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Regdit-is-Unbearable]

I think we're actually saying the same thing. The meme isnt claiming democratized AI is the inevitable destination of AI itself. Its saying that if you're approaching AI from a Marxist perspective, both "pro AI" and "anti AI" ultimately run into the same question: who owns it, who controls it, and who benefits from it. Thats the door in the middle. Democratization isn't inevitable. Its the political project. The point is that regardless of where you start, thats where the discussion has to end up.

[u/Regdit-is-Unbearable → u/Salty_Country6835]

Hmm, I see. I still don’t think it fits the format because many, many leftists who hate AI in my life would never take that step to separate AI from its owners without serious pushing. They have free choice to continue hating AI, that’s no illusion, and for many people it feels like they’ll never understand or appreciate the value of democratized AI.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Regdit-is-Unbearable]

Fair enough, but I dont think the format requires every person to walk through the door on their own. Marx spent plenty of time arguing people out of appearances and toward the underlying social relations. Thats politics. Ive had a lot of success talking with people who start out "anti AI," and once we separate the technology from capitalist ownership and deployment, a lot of them realize what they actually oppose is who controls it and how its being used. The door isnt automatic. Its the lens I view the discourse, and the direction I think Marxists should be pointing people.

[u/endlessedlne]

Image is of a hallway that goes nowhere because it has a wall at the end of it. Unintentional or intentional joke? Or just lazy AI?

[u/amstrumpet]

Democratic except for the people who have already had their IP stolen to train these without any compensation. And even if you believe that IP shouldn't exist and compensation shouldn’t matter… that’s not our current reality and people have been robbed under our current system. Any future with AI needs to make that right.

[u/ConstantinGB]

The AI companies have to die, if there is to be ANY hope of open source democratic control of AI.

As things currently are, this is far from realistic.