It already is, as far as I’m aware. The issue that I’m having is the idea of it being framed as a technology we as Marxists can co-opt. If it has it’s uses in coding or for projects within Marxism, sure, but as far as I’m concerned I don’t really see a valid use in integrating it as it exists within parties or politically other than data storage/organization…which I imagine there is better options for that. Maybe in the future, though.
As long as capitalism exists, I don’t think we “own” any tools without a proper worker’s party to enforce regulations and protect workers in the West. That is the reason I brought up China. I have no objections to open-source alternatives though, but I don’t think us developing open-source tools is going to stop the majority of the use of this tool harming workers. Hence my issue with the idea of “owning it”. We certainly can use it though.
The only way to know whether a particular technology has application is by keeping up with it and by using it. I see plenty of people confidently regurgitate misconception about this tech because they either haven’t actually tried using it, or they haven’t kept up with the latest iterations of it.
Meanwhile, we absolutely can own tools under capitalism. This has nothing to do with a worker party enforcing anything. This is about people doing the work to create tools by the workers and for the workers. Lemmy itself is an example of this. The same type of tool can be in the hands of corporations and the workers. There’s no contradiction here.
Thanks for for the kind words, and that’s a really good application of this tech actually that’s making it possible to produce quality content on a budget.
That’s another interesting application of the AI. From any walks of life(hairdressers, junior devs, restaurant owners) could use it to create a simple app and put it online. Wish to have your thoughts on that one.
I’ve heard of it, but haven’t had a chance to actually try it out. The concept does seem reasonable on the surface though. I think an interactive feedback loop is really critical for this sort of stuff, where the user can ask the agent to build a feature, then can try it out and see that it does what they need, and iterate on that.
A lot of the apps people need are very simple in nature, there tends to be some input form, to collect data, and then some visualization to display data, and talking to some endpoints to send out emails or whatever. It doesn’t need to be beautiful or hyper efficient, just needs to work well enough to solve a problem a particular person has. Currently, unless you’re a dev you’d have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for somebody to build even a simple app for you. This kind of stuff has the potential to lower that barrier dramatically.
I’m well aware of the current existing use-cases. I’m well aware of how far it comes and by the time I’m done typing this it is already advanced further. This is not a case of “ignorance” or “regurgitation”.
Personal ownership is different than a class owning it. There are many tools a worker can own, but the working class owning it? It’ll be like any other tool, that the rich and elite have much more powerful and effective versions of that they can apply in situations that we couldn’t with ownership of the mode of production AKA unemploying people and harming the working class. Acknowledging that isn’t being a luddite.
Do you seriously not understand that the scenario where the rich control this tool exclusively is worse than one where there’s a community owned version of the tool? Do you not understand the problems with closed operating systems like Windows that open alternatives like Linux solve?
Do you seriously not understand that despite community ownership or use of this tool; it’s main purpose will be for the ruling class to extract more value and productivity from labor and that it will do more harm than good?
Does the existence and use of Linux in our community stop the harm that Windows does? Is it not cognizant to recognize and point out the harm Windows does just like the companies that will dominate the field of A.I in the future?
The main purpose of how the ruling class uses this tool will be the same regardless of whether there is a community version of the tool or not. Period.
You’re conflating two separate things here which have no actual relationship between them. The question I ask you once again, is it better that Linux exists and provides an alternative for people or not?
Correct. However, the use-cases of this tool are much more harmful than good. Period.
Sure.
As far as I’m concerned though, Linux has a lot more applicable uses that don’t harm the working class as much. Does Linux have giant data-centers in marginalized neighborhoods chucking pollutants into the ground like Colossus? Because Linux would only help operate that, we don’t need to build giant data-centers and expansive destructive infrastructure for Linux.
I’d argue that conflating Linux and AI is wrong but hey, I can roll with it.
Correct. However, the use-cases of this tool are much more harmful than good. Period.
That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. The tool exists, and capitalists will use it. This is completely independent of whether this tool is also used and developed in the open. Your argument is a logical fallacy because you’re creating a dependency that doesn’t exist to argue against the use of the tool.
Meanwhile, just because you can’t personally think of uses for a tool that doesn’t mean they don’t exist and it’s not helpful to others.
That isn’t irrelevant to the conversation. I’ll make sure to tell the marginalized of Memphis getting poisoned by the giant data-center created for this machine that my argument is a logical fallacy. I’m also a big fan of the fallacy fallacy. Let’s pull out fallacies when you literally equated an operating system with a language model. Really?
You’re ignoring my point and dismissing it as “irrelevant and a fallacy” because a group of coders found a use and justifying their current use of it as “open-source” while the majority of cases it is used in is directly harmful to marginalized people globally and even people in the first-world who are marginalized. That was my original point.
Meanwhile, just because you can personally think of uses for a tool doesn’t mean that the harms don’t exist and it actually has a use in Marxism other than for coding projects (or a niche use-case for a news agency which already spells trouble for ethics if you think about it for two seconds lmao). My other point was that you can’t expect people to embrace this or understand a clear use for this when it doesn’t have an existing one within political organization. Your new “use-cases” for it are nothing more than manifestations of value and productivity from your own labor that will be used by the ruling class while you are fooled into thinking that your open-source alternative actually means a damn thing.
Oh boy, me using an open-source AI really means that the harm and destruction that the current technology causes is irrelevant and a fallacy! Surely, while the capitalists use it to ream more productivity and value from me I can have an open-source version! Yay!
Same shit with phones. Phones truly are an amazing technology. They are slowly becoming more and more enshittified. Just because an open-source version of a phone exists doesn’t mean I want a phone when the bossman wants me to use it for every aspect of my life anyways.
It already is, as far as I’m aware. The issue that I’m having is the idea of it being framed as a technology we as Marxists can co-opt. If it has it’s uses in coding or for projects within Marxism, sure, but as far as I’m concerned I don’t really see a valid use in integrating it as it exists within parties or politically other than data storage/organization…which I imagine there is better options for that. Maybe in the future, though.
As long as capitalism exists, I don’t think we “own” any tools without a proper worker’s party to enforce regulations and protect workers in the West. That is the reason I brought up China. I have no objections to open-source alternatives though, but I don’t think us developing open-source tools is going to stop the majority of the use of this tool harming workers. Hence my issue with the idea of “owning it”. We certainly can use it though.
The only way to know whether a particular technology has application is by keeping up with it and by using it. I see plenty of people confidently regurgitate misconception about this tech because they either haven’t actually tried using it, or they haven’t kept up with the latest iterations of it.
Meanwhile, we absolutely can own tools under capitalism. This has nothing to do with a worker party enforcing anything. This is about people doing the work to create tools by the workers and for the workers. Lemmy itself is an example of this. The same type of tool can be in the hands of corporations and the workers. There’s no contradiction here.
There is even a Nicaraguan news channel that uses AI to produce quality content -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W34HOEGO4Vg
Ah, it is very exhausting to see so many trolls attack you through this thread. Wish you the best Yogthos and you are doing great work.
Thanks for for the kind words, and that’s a really good application of this tech actually that’s making it possible to produce quality content on a budget.
Have you read about Firebase Studio?
That’s another interesting application of the AI. From any walks of life(hairdressers, junior devs, restaurant owners) could use it to create a simple app and put it online. Wish to have your thoughts on that one.
I’ve heard of it, but haven’t had a chance to actually try it out. The concept does seem reasonable on the surface though. I think an interactive feedback loop is really critical for this sort of stuff, where the user can ask the agent to build a feature, then can try it out and see that it does what they need, and iterate on that.
A lot of the apps people need are very simple in nature, there tends to be some input form, to collect data, and then some visualization to display data, and talking to some endpoints to send out emails or whatever. It doesn’t need to be beautiful or hyper efficient, just needs to work well enough to solve a problem a particular person has. Currently, unless you’re a dev you’d have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for somebody to build even a simple app for you. This kind of stuff has the potential to lower that barrier dramatically.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I’m well aware of the current existing use-cases. I’m well aware of how far it comes and by the time I’m done typing this it is already advanced further. This is not a case of “ignorance” or “regurgitation”.
Personal ownership is different than a class owning it. There are many tools a worker can own, but the working class owning it? It’ll be like any other tool, that the rich and elite have much more powerful and effective versions of that they can apply in situations that we couldn’t with ownership of the mode of production AKA unemploying people and harming the working class. Acknowledging that isn’t being a luddite.
Do you seriously not understand that the scenario where the rich control this tool exclusively is worse than one where there’s a community owned version of the tool? Do you not understand the problems with closed operating systems like Windows that open alternatives like Linux solve?
Do you seriously not understand that despite community ownership or use of this tool; it’s main purpose will be for the ruling class to extract more value and productivity from labor and that it will do more harm than good?
Does the existence and use of Linux in our community stop the harm that Windows does? Is it not cognizant to recognize and point out the harm Windows does just like the companies that will dominate the field of A.I in the future?
The main purpose of how the ruling class uses this tool will be the same regardless of whether there is a community version of the tool or not. Period.
You’re conflating two separate things here which have no actual relationship between them. The question I ask you once again, is it better that Linux exists and provides an alternative for people or not?
Correct. However, the use-cases of this tool are much more harmful than good. Period.
Sure.
As far as I’m concerned though, Linux has a lot more applicable uses that don’t harm the working class as much. Does Linux have giant data-centers in marginalized neighborhoods chucking pollutants into the ground like Colossus? Because Linux would only help operate that, we don’t need to build giant data-centers and expansive destructive infrastructure for Linux.
I’d argue that conflating Linux and AI is wrong but hey, I can roll with it.
That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. The tool exists, and capitalists will use it. This is completely independent of whether this tool is also used and developed in the open. Your argument is a logical fallacy because you’re creating a dependency that doesn’t exist to argue against the use of the tool.
Meanwhile, just because you can’t personally think of uses for a tool that doesn’t mean they don’t exist and it’s not helpful to others.
That isn’t irrelevant to the conversation. I’ll make sure to tell the marginalized of Memphis getting poisoned by the giant data-center created for this machine that my argument is a logical fallacy. I’m also a big fan of the fallacy fallacy. Let’s pull out fallacies when you literally equated an operating system with a language model. Really?
You’re ignoring my point and dismissing it as “irrelevant and a fallacy” because a group of coders found a use and justifying their current use of it as “open-source” while the majority of cases it is used in is directly harmful to marginalized people globally and even people in the first-world who are marginalized. That was my original point.
Meanwhile, just because you can personally think of uses for a tool doesn’t mean that the harms don’t exist and it actually has a use in Marxism other than for coding projects (or a niche use-case for a news agency which already spells trouble for ethics if you think about it for two seconds lmao). My other point was that you can’t expect people to embrace this or understand a clear use for this when it doesn’t have an existing one within political organization. Your new “use-cases” for it are nothing more than manifestations of value and productivity from your own labor that will be used by the ruling class while you are fooled into thinking that your open-source alternative actually means a damn thing.
Oh boy, me using an open-source AI really means that the harm and destruction that the current technology causes is irrelevant and a fallacy! Surely, while the capitalists use it to ream more productivity and value from me I can have an open-source version! Yay!
Same shit with phones. Phones truly are an amazing technology. They are slowly becoming more and more enshittified. Just because an open-source version of a phone exists doesn’t mean I want a phone when the bossman wants me to use it for every aspect of my life anyways.