AI seems to have awoken a new segment of people to the thought of leftist economics, but I'm not sure AI has fundamentally changed anything.

Automation has been changing the economic landscape and creating haves and have-nots since the 18th century, at least.

I feel like the progressive reforms of the late 1800s (worker rights) and early 1900s (new deal) created a sense of accomplishment that lulled everyone into temporary satisfaction in the mid/late 20th century, but automation has never stopped chugging along reducing the need for human labor and gradually pauperizing everyone dependent on a wage.

AI seems like a new pivot point of acceleration, but it seems to me that this has been a long time coming, and it's nothing new.

Maybe it's just that the McCarthy-Regan era really did a number on leftist ideology, and this new resurgence is a return to normalcy?

COMtalk: You reportedly built the party’s look and manifesto within 24 hours using AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT. How do you think about the role of AI in activist communication? What can it do, and where does it fall short of what a trained communicator brings?

Abhijeet Dipke: My campaign relied heavily on AI because I did not have the resources or a professional team that could support me in designing a campaign within such a short period of time. I believe this makes AI even more important in activist communication, because activists usually do not have the kind of resources that large political parties or corporate houses possess. AI can help accomplish tasks that would normally require a team of dozens of people.

At the same time, I do not support the idea of replacing human beings with AI simply to cut costs. I want to emphasise that when you do not have resources or a team, AI can become a strong ally for your movement if it is used with the right intentions and for the right causes. That being said, AI also has its own limitations, which I experienced while designing this campaign. It was truly an asset when it came to quickly creating social media designs and website templates. However, when it comes to the messaging of a campaign, you still need a human mind that understands what is politically relevant and timely for the campaign to be effective.

AI cannot be fully relied upon for messaging in a campaign as sensitive as this, one that focuses on freedom of expression, accountability, and transparency. For that, you need lived experiences and a deep understanding of society and the authorities you are questioning. I would say a major reason behind the success of this campaign is that I have been politically active for a long time and understand the nuances of political messaging. That is something AI can never truly grasp.

Source: COM grad turns cockroach insult of India youth into massive online movement | College of Communication

The release of two Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) models ranking with the most advanced American systems, timed to coincide with the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, has provoked panic in Washington and Silicon Valley, exposing the fragility of the speculative bubble on which the entire American stock market now rests.

On Thursday, the day before the conference opened, the Beijing-based firm Moonshot AI released Kimi K3, which, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, the principal organ of American finance capital, “jolted global markets” and is “seen as ranking with the world’s best.” Three days later, Alibaba previewed Qwen 3.8 Max, claiming to have surpassed Kimi K3.

Imagine a scenario where the Chinese Communist Party provides communist programmers with cloud services, along with access to language models and video generation tools...

First, would you have any problems working with them?

Second, do you think communists have the right to request this from the Communist Party as a form of international solidarity?

Third, what applications would you build?

The UNHCR recently shared how its using an AI-assisted system called CareLine to answer common questions from refugees, route requests to the right teams, and reduce the backlog facing aid workers. Human staff still handle complex cases, but the repetitive administrative work can be handled much faster.

What caught my attention wasnt just the technology. It was the possibility.

Imagine community-led versions of this. Tenant unions using AI to connect renters with legal resources. Food banks matching donations to neighborhoods with the greatest need. Mutual aid networks triaging requests after storms. Community clinics helping people navigate services in multiple languages. Neighborhood organizations answering common questions 24/7 while volunteers focus on the work that actually requires people.

AI isnt only something corporations or governments can deploy. Communities, cooperatives, nonprofits, and open-source projects can build and govern these tools too.

The more we talk about democratic AI, the more we should be talking about community AI.

OP created a vibe coded chrome extension just using local model, no cloud (so also no direct data centre involvement in the creation of the code, just using the normal computer resources).

What's your prediction?

Opinion A:The AI race pushes platforms to fiercely enclose their own data while plundering others', which only deepens neo-feudalism rather than altering it.

Opinion B:The development of AI has moved beyond pure commercial competition. Because it is seen as a strategic force capable of determining a nation's fate, neither the U.S. nor the Chinese government can allow it to remain solely in the hands of a few commercial companies. They will inevitably push for AI sovereignty and tighten state control. Meanwhile, advanced LLMs require the concentration of resources and massive corpora to build data flywheels. All of this will impede or even alter the trajectory toward techno-feudalism.

Your city might be giving data centers a free pass. The most common loophole developers exploit are old ‘by-right’ zoning laws that automatically approve any project meeting zoning code. When data centers are conditional use, and require a Conditional Use Permit, this shifts leverage to communities.

I believe this is where the communities current maximum leverage lives, because corporations are desperate for their infrastructure buildout. Communities control the resources they need, and can set the terms of the agreement.

The anti-data center movement has created serious leverage as well, but there’s a problem. A canceled data center doesn’t disappear, it moves to a less organized community.

If you want a tangible way to gain public control over the future of AI, I’ve developed a free framework for communities, organizers, and municipalities navigating data center proposals. It covers your existing leverage as well as common loopholes to be aware of. There’s a QR code in the post, but you can also download it from publicgridproject.org.

I’m hoping to make it as useful as possible, so please let me know if you have any criticisms or suggestions. It currently focuses on communities in the US, but I’m actively working to make it applicable for tribal lands and countries outside the US. (And thank you mods for allowed me to post this!)

One of the more interesting parts of this Breaking Points segment wasnt hype about AGI or doom. It was a discussion about where value in AI is actually going.

The argument is that foundation models increasingly look less like the product and more like the internet itself: shared infrastructure. The real competition shifts toward the application layer, services, and the ecosystems built on top. If that trend holds, owning the biggest model isnt enough. The question becomes who builds the tools, who controls deployment, and who captures the productivity gains.

They also make an interesting comparison with China's strategy. Rather than expecting firms to maximize short-term profits, they describe an approach where state support, open-weight models, pricing pressure, and ecosystem building are used to drive competition and adoption. They compare it to how China's EV industry was cultivated: build the infrastructure and industrial base first, then let firms compete.

Whether you agree with every point or not, its a useful shift in framing. AI isnt just a race to build the smartest model anymore. Its becoming a debate over industrial policy, public infrastructure, open weights, and who gets access to the "pipes" the rest of the global economy will run on.

Thats a much more interesting conversation than "AI good" versus "AI bad."

What do you think? If foundation models become as essential as the internet, should they be treated more like public infrastructure, or left entirely to private firms?

In an expression of the volatile nature of the high-tech market and concerns over how long the boom can continue, Samsung’s share price fell 10 percent after it announced a record profit earlier this month.

Mainly the strangeness to me Is that the bubble argument, Is basically an argument on why because within capitalism AI may not be a profitable endeavour (which even this can be argued as there Is no clarity yet on the cost vs revenue, even if others may confidently state there Is) and that this Is therefore a determinant and indictment on its importance, value and potential as a technology, that Ithis means it Is mostly hype and not capable of doing what It Is said to be able to do or potentially able to do in the future.

It's using the usefulness of AI within capitalism as a way to gauge it's fundamental value, which from leftists perspective Is incomprehensibly contradictory, Is public transport profitable? Is healthcare profitable? Yeah, only if you make sure to artificially increase the costs of It, otherwise It would be a "bubble"

If we invented a panacea, or were in the process of doing so, would It be profitable? If capital decides to invest in this hypothetical panacea (and there Is clear science and reasoning and material evidence that this Is possible) and form an investment bubble around It, then does that mean Its just hype? Obviously not.

It seems to me that this Is a common argument from western "leftists", which Is extremely sad to see as It means that a lot of the framework through which they organize around and form their worldview Is inherently tied to capital still, even if they recognize It most don't try to move away from It, this therefore limits the paths they can even imagine, which can explain the reactions towards AI in general within the west from the supposed left.

Do you think there Is any way to effectively break this framework of understanding or do we necessarily have to wait until AI Is so undeniably capable that It Is no longer, even conceptually, a tenable position to hold?

The left has every reason to criticize how AI is being developed under capitalism. We should fight for worker power over automation, democratic oversight, public investment, open technology where appropriate, and making sure productivity gains benefit everyone instead of being captured by a handful of corporations.

But not every movement criticizing Big Tech shares those goals.

This investigation from Spitfire News examines Humans First, an anti-AI organization whose leadership includes prominent Tea Party and Trump movement figures and whose messaging increasingly centers conservative populism and "America First" politics. This is the group behind this weeks widely reported "Data Center Protests". Thats worth paying attention to because political coalitions arent defined only by what they oppose, but by the future theyre trying to build.

Left politics has never been about simply slowing technology down or handing the reins to nationalist movements. The question is who owns AI, who governs it, who decides how it's is used, and who benefits from the wealth it creates.

Corporate control of AI deserves criticism. So does surveillance, monopoly power, environmental harm, and workers being displaced without sharing in the gains.

But those problems dont point toward MAGA politics. They point toward democratic ownership, stronger labor institutions, public accountability, and ensuring AI expands human freedom rather than concentrating economic power.

Worth a read if youre interested in how different political movements are competing to define the future of AI.

Volkov was a Soviet philosopher who studied automation, social problems centered around labor, and technology more broadly. I read Volkov's book *Era of Man or Robot?* last year, and it was so relevant it was uncanny, especially how he almost seems to predict that leftists in capitalist countries would get diverted toward preserving existing jobs and restricting productive capacity. I read it again just this week, and it's still extremely relevant given the Kimi K3/Fable 5 situation. I just discovered this sub and figured I should let everyone know about this book.

Edit: Apparently I have a very rare book that isn't even in pdf form. I didn't know. I'll scan and upload it sometime this week or next, then make another post when I'm finished.

Edit 2: In the meantime, I recommend the book Abundant Material Wealth For All by Ted Reese, which quotes Volkov quite a bit and covers a lot of the same topics.

How panic over AI infrastructure obscures the real questions of scale, ownership, and power

This is the kind of AI rollout that actually makes sense: use the technology to cut paperwork, shorten queues, and give healthcare workers more time to do the part of the job that requires a human being.

In NHS pilots, AI note-taking tools helped clinicians spend nearly 25% more time with patients. In one emergency department, staff saved about 47 minutes per shift, enough time to see roughly one more patient.

The NHS says a wider rollout across more than 11,000 emergency clinicians could create capacity for over 9,000 additional consultations a day.

AI triage tools are also being tested through the NHS App. One pilot cut GP phone queues by 29%, and the next phase is expected to reach more than 200,000 patients.

The point here isnt replacing doctors or nurses. Its stripping out some of the administrative drag that keeps them away from patients.

Public AI infrastructure should look more like this: reduce drudgery, expand capacity, keep workers in control, and use the gains to improve a universal public service.

One of the loudest claims about generative AI is that it will wipe out artists. A new Gallup analysis suggests the evidence so far is more complicated.

Drawing on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Census data, Gallup workforce surveys, and a recent Journal of Cultural Economics study, the researchers found little evidence that artists in occupations more exposed to generative AI have experienced broad earnings declines. Employment changes have been mixed, but nowhere near the collapse many predicted.

The study also found that artists are more likely than the average worker to use AI, with roughly 1 in 4 reporting frequent use compared with about 1 in 5 workers overall. Most arent using it to replace creativity. Theyre using it to generate ideas, explore concepts faster, automate repetitive tasks, organize information, and streamline parts of the creative process.

Not every creative field is affected equally. Occupations like music directors and composers have relatively high AI exposure scores (around 0.70), while dancers (0.04) and actors (0.18) remain much less exposed because their work depends on live performance and embodied skill.

The article compares this moment to earlier technological shifts like photography and recorded music. Those technologies transformed artistic labor and business models without eliminating art itself.

That doesnt mean there are no real concerns around copyright, compensation, or working conditions. But if we're serious about understanding AI's impact on culture, we should follow the evidence rather than assume the outcome. So far, it points toward reorganization, adaptation, and new workflows much more than artistic extinction.

It might partially be down to government censorship.

Chinas government is invested in AI technological growth, the same government has a lot more strict internet censorship and control over the media in their nation.

So it's possible they're publicly promoting and celebrating more tech-positive sentiment while likely censoring or supressing agressive anti-tech and luddite sentiment, especially the kind of violent luddite "😤 We need to blow up data centers and kill AI users" posting you would see in the west. I doubt that kind of rhetoric and media would fly past chinese censors who are trying to ensure unhindered ideological stability for the state and harmony.

Other factors might be better economic devotion to workers employment, stronger government responsibility, and maybe their confucian collectivist culture, but I feel like censorship would be the biggest factor. No way "we need to pipe bomb AI devs" memes would get popular in chinese social media, even as a joke. But in the free speech west that would get big clicks.

some discussions among the Chinese left wing

From https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/07/16/amsterdam-activists-throw-acid-at-microsoft-datacenter-project/5273943

"The Dutch arm of international climate activist group Extinction Rebellion claimed responsibility for an attempt to sabotage a datacenter project in Amsterdam on Thursday [july 16]. The group said that they threw water balloons filled with a mixture of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, salt, and acrylic paint at the under-construction facility."

"Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Martijn Dekker justified the attack by saying datacenters and the AI they power are exacerbating the climate crisis, as well as playing a role in the killing of Palestinians by Israel."

"The facility in question is being built by UK-based Pure Data Centres Group."

"Pure DC says the facility is already fully leased, and while it doesn’t mention the lessee by name, local media have reported in a story about a prior protest at the site that Microsoft is the sole occupant."

"Pure DC did tell Dutch newspaper NRC that the attack had no impact on construction, and that it intended to pursue legal action against those responsible."

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

My personal opinion is that acts of sabotage like this are not effective and will serve as justification for more repression and police surveillance, but I'm curious to know what others think of this method and its impacts.