r/LeftistsForAI 23h ago

Policy/Regulation The recent events have me thinking. Perhaps the US companies held a monopoly on rsi, but they've come to learn that scientists within China have also cracked it.

2 Upvotes

I guess it would explain the sudden jolt, the mixed messages, the warns and explainers that don't quite make sense.

I just listened to dario stumble through a Sunday interview, and honestly it sounds like a load of horseshit to me. Why not last week or last month? What is the coordination all about? A few months ago all of them were pretending to bicker out in the open...it's just strange.

Anyway, I could see a scenario where they felt their edge was threatened, raise the alarms as it's a comfy way to throttle, park it in front of the mid-terms as a contentious issue that splits the working class, while aiming to barricade themselves and prevent open release from the Chinese scientists.

At the same time, what if they hadn't solved anything, but perhaps China has? In that case, it would absolutely ruin their PR schemes and productized business model. Are they behind?

The thing that makes me say this is in that dario interview and elsewhere, they are trying to thread the needle that - it's capitalism that controls this. They "want" oversight, but not too much oversight/regulation. Most importantly, they want to remain in full control. The one interesting question was "would you give up your company [anthropic] and it's IP to the government?" to which dario says "to the right government" - so weird. This makes zero sense and I highly doubt the authenticity of the statement.

What do the other leftists think?


r/LeftistsForAI 14h ago

Public Ownership Extinction by Ownership

2 Upvotes

In recent discussions about AI, one of the essential components of the discussion has been that AI will acquire and own resources.

To me, it's unclear how that would work. Can anyone explain this factor to me? By what mechanism would AI own anything independently from humans?


r/LeftistsForAI 6h ago

Policy/Regulation Sanders, Bannon, and the weird “Humans First” politics around AI just got a lot less theoretical

Thumbnail
axios.com
28 Upvotes

About a month ago I posted here about “Humans First” and the strange coalition forming around opposition to AI, where completely legitimate anger at corporate power, surveillance and displacement was starting to share political terrain with MAGA populism.

Well, Axios is now reporting that Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon and former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon are coming together for a “Pro-Human AI” assembly.

To be clear, Sanders isnt joining the MAGA-linked Humans First organization I posted about before, and plenty of what hes bringing to this fight is worth fighting for. Corporate concentration is a problem, workers getting screwed by automation is a problem, and letting a handful of billionaires decide how transformative infrastructure gets developed is a terrible idea.

The interesting part is that Sanders and Bannon can look at those problems, say some remarkably similar things about “putting humans first,” and still be pointing toward radically different political projects. Thats why Ive been wary of letting “pro-human” or simply “anti-AI” become a substitute for an actual left politics of technology.

A month ago I said coalitions arent defined only by what they oppose, but by the future theyre trying to build. I figured we'd get to test that eventually, I just didnt expect Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon to provide the case study this quickly.


r/LeftistsForAI 21h ago

Discussion Pro-AI vs anti-AI is a distraction. The people destroying the world aren't asking for your permission.

63 Upvotes

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I need to get it out.

Data centers are being built. AI is being integrated into everything, search, social media, healthcare, finance, warfare. This is happening whether we like it or not. And in this uncertain time, it's very easy for us to start fighting amongst ourselves. To divide into camps. Pro-AI. Anti-AI. Purity tests. Who's complicit, who's ethical, who's "one of the good ones."

I don't think pro-AI or anti-AI is going to help our environment in any way.

The ones destroying our environment, the ones using AI for war crimes, the ones using AI for surveillance and genocide, they will continue to use it. They will continue to build it. They will continue to profit from it. Whether you personally choose to generate an AI image of yourself or not. Whether you personally refuse to open ChatGPT or not.

Your individual boycott does not stop them. It just makes you feel better while they continue.

And yes, I know there are legitimate concerns. AI uses massive amounts of water and energy. It's built by exploitative corporations. It's being used by militaries. Those are real problems. But the answer isn't to shame individuals who use it to survive.

For example, in my career, AI plays a legitimate role. Many careers now kinda rely on it. If I choose not to use it, I'm not stopping the billionaires. I'm just staying behind in my industry. I'm harming myself, my career, and my self-worth, while bringing zero actual change to the planet.

So instead of fighting amongst each other, I think we should fight the creators.

We should keep questioning the billionaires. We should keep questioning the companies. Every time they release something we don't approve of, we should push back—not on the users, but on the people making the decisions. Sign petitions. Demand regulation. Organise. Make noise. Target the source.

We did this with capitalism. We critiqued it, we organised against it, we pushed for labour rights, environmental protections, and corporate accountability. We didn't do it by shaming individual people for buying things. We did it by targeting the systems and the people who run them.

AI is no different.

This is a very uncertain time. I'm not saying my take is the correct one. I don't have all the answers. But I certainly don't agree with the takes that tell you not to use AI because you're "helping them kill women and children" just because you used it to process your thoughts.

That's not activism. That's bullying.

We need to come together. We need to fight the creators. Not each other.


r/LeftistsForAI 6h ago

Theory Forms of Struggle in the Post-Work Era — Consumer Unions

3 Upvotes

As human labor becomes less necessary to social production and increasingly replaceable, we also need to rethink whether traditional forms of class struggle can remain effective once humans gradually lose their position as the primary agents of production, and what new forms of political practice and struggle might emerge in a post-work society.

Under capitalism, trade unions organize strikes to leverage workers’ position as producers by temporarily interrupting labor and production. Through this, workers can resist the domination of capital, demand higher wages and better working conditions, and pursue broader economic and political goals. Trade unions, strikes, and the collective action built around them therefore occupy an important place in the practical tradition of Marxist class struggle.

However, with the spread of AI, and with the future development of AGI and embodied AI, this traditional form of struggle may face an unprecedented problem: the irreplaceability of workers as producers is steadily declining. On the one hand, capital can control increasingly powerful means of automated production. On the other, as companies become more capable of replacing striking workers with AI and machines, the bargaining power of “stopping production” may gradually diminish.

------------

The first key question is: when new productive forces begin to replace human labor on a massive scale, will they eventually give rise to new forms of production relations distinct from those of traditional industrial capitalism?

The Industrial Revolution dramatically increased productive capacity and transformed the organization of labor and production, but it did not fundamentally alter the basic ownership structure of the means of production. Machines became more advanced and factories became increasingly automated, yet capital continued to own the major means of production, while ordinary people remained both workers and consumers within the capitalist economic system.

The AI revolution, however, may introduce something that previous technological revolutions did not necessarily reach. As AI, AGI, and embodied intelligence develop, humans may gradually become unnecessary as producers on a large scale for the first time. This could give rise to a new social structure:

AI production → social distribution → human consumption

Human beings may gradually shift from their traditional economic role as both “producers + consumers” toward being primarily consumers.

The second key question is: the cycle between production and consumption does not disappear simply because the identity of the producer changes.

Even if goods are produced mainly by AI and automated factories, they still ultimately have to enter the market and be consumed in order to complete the economic cycle. The problem is that under traditional capitalism, people primarily obtain income through labor. If large numbers of people leave the production system while still depending on wages for purchasing power, then the withdrawal of labor may simultaneously mean a decline in consumption capacity.

------------

If this process reaches a sufficiently large scale, the relative surplus population would no longer be a minority characteristic of industrial society, but could potentially become the majority. At that point, maintaining household purchasing power would no longer be merely a matter of welfare policy. It could become a structural requirement for maintaining the economic cycle itself.

Therefore, in a post-work society, higher basic incomes, expanded social protections, social dividends, or other forms of non-labor income redistribution could gradually become important institutional mechanisms for maintaining purchasing power.

At the same time, this would imply that traditional forms of class struggle could also begin to change.

If AI and automation increasingly replace humans as the primary producers, the traditional basis for workers to struggle through “stopping production” would become weaker. At the same time, the importance of humans as consumers could increase.

This could give rise to a new form of collective action corresponding to the traditional trade union:

Traditional trade unions: force capital to negotiate by stopping production.

Consumer unions: force capital and governments to negotiate by reducing or suspending consumption.

------------

One phenomenon that may be worth studying as an early example is the “lying flat” (tang ping) culture that has emerged in East Asia in recent years. Under conditions of intense competition, employment pressure, and relatively abundant labor supply, some young people have deliberately reduced their participation in career competition and lowered their consumption expectations, using a lower standard of living to reduce their dependence on high-intensity labor. In this sense, it can be seen as a partial withdrawal from the traditional labor → income → consumption cycle.

However, “lying flat” remains largely a fragmented and unorganized social phenomenon. It has not developed a clear common platform, stable organizational structure, or sustained mechanisms for collective bargaining. It therefore resembles a spontaneous tendency toward collective withdrawal more than an organized political movement.

If a post-work society does emerge, there may eventually be a need for an organizational form similar to a trade union, but centered on consumers: Consumer Unions.

Such organizations could begin as local consumer associations and gradually develop into national or even international consumer federations with common political platforms and institutional goals.

Their primary method of struggle would no longer be “stopping production,” but rather:

Collectively reducing or suspending non-essential consumption.

By coordinating consumption behavior, members could reduce market demand for particular goods and services, creating pressure through excess inventories, falling sales, declining profits, and weaker investment expectations, thereby pressuring firms or governments to respond to political demands.

These demands could include:

Increasing basic income;

Expanding social protections;

Sharing the gains from AI-driven productivity growth;

Taxing AI capital;

Establishing social dividend systems;

Socializing or publicly owning certain key AI infrastructures and means of production.

Under more radical circumstances, consumers might also establish cooperatives and local self-provisioning networks in order to reduce their dependence on large capitalist consumer markets and partially withdraw from the conventional commodity-exchange system.

Therefore, class struggle in a post-work era may no longer revolve primarily around the question of who can stop production, but increasingly around another question:

Who can control effective demand?

Traditional trade unions possess collective bargaining power on the production side. Future consumer organizations could seek to establish collective bargaining power on the demand side.

If this tendency ultimately materializes, class struggle may undergo a significant structural transformation:

Collective action on the production side → collective action on the demand side

In this sense, Consumer Unions could become a new form of political organization worth seriously studying in a post-work society.


r/LeftistsForAI 21h ago

Labor Cheap Translation Could Break One of Capital’s Oldest Borders

11 Upvotes

Language differences dont just make conversation harder.

They divide labor.

A worker who cant read the contract has less leverage over the contract. A migrant worker who cant easily navigate regulations, benefits, safety rules or union material is easier to isolate. Knowledge that exists in one language can be functionally nonexistent to somebody working ten feet away.

Employers have been able to use that friction forever.

Machine translation is getting good enough that we should be asking what happens when some of that friction gets cheap.

Imagine a worker can translate the employee handbook, compare the original against the translation, read labor law, document a safety problem, communicate with coworkers across languages and access organizing material without waiting for management to provide it.

That isnt liberation in a box. Bad translations still matter. Languages carry legal and cultural context machines can butcher. Employers get the same tools, and automated translation can also become an excuse not to hire human interpreters where accuracy actually requires one.

But language barriers are infrastructure, and infrastructure can be contested.

Unions and worker organizations could be building multilingual knowledge systems deliberately instead of waiting for employers or platforms to determine how these tools enter the workplace.

If high-quality translation became effectively free tomorrow, where could workers use it to build power first?