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 is irrelevant to the discussion because nobody is supporting corporations doing these things. If you have a way to combat corporate actions such as the marginalized of Memphis getting poisoned by the giant data-center, then by all means do that. However, fighting against open source development of this tech has absolutely no impact on that.
Let’s pull out fallacies when you literally equated an operating system with a language model. Really?
I literally didn’t do that. What I did was give you an analogy.
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.
As I’ve already explained to you repeatedly in this thread, you’re conflating two unrelated things here. That’s the fallacy. One thing has no impact on the other. Yet, you continue claiming that being against open source somehow impacts what corporations do which it very obviously does not.
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).
Every technology has potential to do harm. Actual Marxists do not reject technology on this basis lmfao.
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.
As others explained to you here, use within political organization is not a prerequisite. In fact, if you spent even a few minutes thinking about this, then you’d quickly realize that having open tools is a PREREQUISITE for it to even be possible for them to be used within political context.
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!
Oh boy, me breathing air and eating food while a billionaire also does it means I should just stop doing these things! This is literally the level of argument you’ve got here.
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.
Once again conflating technology with how it’s used under capitalism. Meanwhile, ignoring clear benefits an open source phone has for people in the current system we live in. Just because we can’t overthrow capitalism outright, does not mean we shouldn’t make things better and give more power to the workers. I guess in your mind the overthrow of capitalism is just a magical event that has no material basis behind it lmao.
It is irrelevant to the discussion because nobody is supporting corporations doing these things. If you have a way to combat corporate actions such as the marginalized of Memphis getting poisoned by the giant data-center, then by all means do that. However, fighting against open source development of this tech has absolutely no impact on that.
It’s relevant when your point is that people aren’t going to embrace this technology easily when it’s doing more harm than good and has no clear use within political organization as Marxists so the response here isn’t “trolling” as one user put it; it’s unsurprising, rather.
As I’ve already explained to you repeatedly in this thread, you’re conflating two unrelated things here. That’s the fallacy. One thing has no impact on the other. Yet, you continue claiming that being against open source somehow impacts what corporations do which it very obviously does not.
I was saying that open-source doesn’t matter, people are going to be against this technology because of the massive impact it is going to have globally on marginalized people. Nor was I saying that we should reject it, but there is no obvious use-cases here and it’s unsurprising the people are rejecting it because of that fact. You think some coding project where current models have uses like this will somehow be of benefit? Go for it, best of luck to you.
As others explained to you here, use within political organization is not a prerequisite. In fact, if you spent even a few minutes thinking about this, then you’d quickly realize that having open tools is a PREREQUISITE for it to even be possible for them to be used within political context.
Meanwhile, ignoring clear benefits an open source phone has for people in the current system we live in. Just because we can’t overthrow capitalism outright, does not mean we shouldn’t make things better and give more power to the workers.
Which is why I brought up that it doesn’t really matter because there is no clear use-cases of these within political organization other than data organization which I did bring up earlier and I said there is likely going to be better solutions for that. Perhaps one day we will find a use for them, in the mean-time it’s going to cause irreparable harm and people are justifiably going to hate it and/or reject it. But yeah, for some reason you keep thinking I’m saying “it’s bad because it’s bad”. Also where exactly did I say open-source is bad? I said it doesn’t mean anything because any open-source project you could do with this technology as it exists right now is near meaningless in the face of what the harm and damage the ruling class will do with it. Maybe in the future you have a point, but as of right now, I don’t blame people for rejecting it or hating it.
Otherwise, if it’s not being used within Marxism or political organization; why the hell would I want to use a technology that lets capitalists extract more value and labor for me? Why would I advocate or want it’s use? It’s not going to make your job easier. Now you can do more and the bar for how much labor is expected from you and how productive you can be will be raised. That is literally what happens with every technology under capitalism. So why should I cheer for it or be happy for it if it’s not being used for revolutionary purposes? That’s exactly why I brought up phones. Why do I care there’s an open-source version of a phone when it’s just going to be used as a tool to extract more value and profit from me? That’s not me arguing whatever you think I am.
That is as clear and precise as I can possibly be.
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.
It is irrelevant to the discussion because nobody is supporting corporations doing these things. If you have a way to combat corporate actions such as the marginalized of Memphis getting poisoned by the giant data-center, then by all means do that. However, fighting against open source development of this tech has absolutely no impact on that.
I literally didn’t do that. What I did was give you an analogy.
As I’ve already explained to you repeatedly in this thread, you’re conflating two unrelated things here. That’s the fallacy. One thing has no impact on the other. Yet, you continue claiming that being against open source somehow impacts what corporations do which it very obviously does not.
Every technology has potential to do harm. Actual Marxists do not reject technology on this basis lmfao.
As others explained to you here, use within political organization is not a prerequisite. In fact, if you spent even a few minutes thinking about this, then you’d quickly realize that having open tools is a PREREQUISITE for it to even be possible for them to be used within political context.
Oh boy, me breathing air and eating food while a billionaire also does it means I should just stop doing these things! This is literally the level of argument you’ve got here.
Once again conflating technology with how it’s used under capitalism. Meanwhile, ignoring clear benefits an open source phone has for people in the current system we live in. Just because we can’t overthrow capitalism outright, does not mean we shouldn’t make things better and give more power to the workers. I guess in your mind the overthrow of capitalism is just a magical event that has no material basis behind it lmao.
It’s relevant when your point is that people aren’t going to embrace this technology easily when it’s doing more harm than good and has no clear use within political organization as Marxists so the response here isn’t “trolling” as one user put it; it’s unsurprising, rather.
I was saying that open-source doesn’t matter, people are going to be against this technology because of the massive impact it is going to have globally on marginalized people. Nor was I saying that we should reject it, but there is no obvious use-cases here and it’s unsurprising the people are rejecting it because of that fact. You think some coding project where current models have uses like this will somehow be of benefit? Go for it, best of luck to you.
Which is why I brought up that it doesn’t really matter because there is no clear use-cases of these within political organization other than data organization which I did bring up earlier and I said there is likely going to be better solutions for that. Perhaps one day we will find a use for them, in the mean-time it’s going to cause irreparable harm and people are justifiably going to hate it and/or reject it. But yeah, for some reason you keep thinking I’m saying “it’s bad because it’s bad”. Also where exactly did I say open-source is bad? I said it doesn’t mean anything because any open-source project you could do with this technology as it exists right now is near meaningless in the face of what the harm and damage the ruling class will do with it. Maybe in the future you have a point, but as of right now, I don’t blame people for rejecting it or hating it.
Otherwise, if it’s not being used within Marxism or political organization; why the hell would I want to use a technology that lets capitalists extract more value and labor for me? Why would I advocate or want it’s use? It’s not going to make your job easier. Now you can do more and the bar for how much labor is expected from you and how productive you can be will be raised. That is literally what happens with every technology under capitalism. So why should I cheer for it or be happy for it if it’s not being used for revolutionary purposes? That’s exactly why I brought up phones. Why do I care there’s an open-source version of a phone when it’s just going to be used as a tool to extract more value and profit from me? That’s not me arguing whatever you think I am.
That is as clear and precise as I can possibly be.