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.

The argument that technology is inherently harmful, or that its current misuse by corporations negates its potential, fundamentally misinterprets the Marxist perspective. The issues you raise regarding harm are a critique of how technology is deployed within capitalist structures, not an indictment of the technology itself. It's absolutely crucial to distinguish between the tool and its application by those in power.

You're also mistakenly asserting that a technology has no value unless you can immediately identify a direct application within a Marxist organization. This is a profound misunderstanding of historical materialism and the Marxist stance on productive forces.

Marx and Engels were clear proponents of technological development, even under capitalism. They understood that capitalism, despite its exploitative nature, plays a crucial role in advancing the means of production. This isn't an endorsement of capitalism, but a recognition of its historical function.

Both Marx and Engels saw the development of productive forces (technology, machinery, labor skills, infrastructure) as a prerequisite for communism. They argued that the revolutionary potential of the proletariat is directly tied to the level of development of these forces. Communism, as envisioned by Marx, is a society of abundance, where the needs of all can be met. This abundance is only achievable through highly developed productive forces. Capitalism, by perfecting these forces, inadvertently lays the material groundwork for a communist society.

To argue against technological development because of its current misuse is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Marxists recognize that the problem lies not with the technology itself, but with the relations of production that govern its use. Our goal is not to halt progress, but to seize control of these productive forces and direct them towards emancipatory ends.

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.

Your assertion that open-source doesn't matter and that people will inevitably oppose technology due to its potential harm to marginalized groups is a reactionary position that fundamentally misunderstands Marxist analysis. This view is deeply problematic, especially within circles that claim to be Marxist, because it's rooted in Luddism rather than a materialist understanding of history.

That argument directly contradicts core Marxist principles and echoes the Luddites who futilely destroyed machines, failing to grasp that the real issue wasn't the technology itself, but its application within a capitalist system. Marxists see technology as a productive force with inherent potential. Your argument also ignores the dialectical nature of technological development under capitalism. While any technology can be used for exploitation, it also holds the capacity for liberation. To focus solely on the negative without acknowledging this dual potential, or how technology can be repurposed once the means of production are socialized is not sound analysis.

Furthermore, simply declaring that people will reject technology surrenders revolutionary agency. A Marxist approach seeks to understand why harm occurs (i.e., capitalist relations of production) and how technology can be reoriented for human benefit. Highly developed productive forces are, in fact, a prerequisite for communism, as they enable a society of abundance. By opposing technological advancement, even under capitalism, you inadvertently hinder the very conditions necessary for a communist society. Lastly, dismissing phenomena like open-source as irrelevant overlooks their significance. While not a magic solution to capitalism, open-source represents a contradiction within the system, it's a collaborative model that challenges private ownership and offers a glimpse into alternative modes of production.

The prevalence of such reactionary sentiment within some Marxist circles is alarming because it signifies a departure from rigorous materialist analysis. This type of argument prioritizes an emotional or moralistic critique over a strategic understanding of capitalist development. Our role isn't to fear technological progress, but to analyze its trajectory and strategize how to seize and redirect these powerful tools for the construction of a communist society.

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.

There are plenty of clear use-cases for political organizations. It's absurd to claim otherwise. Open-source AI models enable a nurse to visualize a protest poster, a factory worker to draft a union newsletter, or a tenant to simulate rent-strike scenarios. These are tools that allow people to produce content that very obviously has application for political messaging. It allows small political organizations to produce polished content on a budget that can rival what would've previously necessitated million dollar media budgets. The fact that you claim to not be able to see any use in a political context for this tech tells me that you really haven't thought about this at all.

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.

It's clear we're stuck in a loop here. I've explained the fallacy in your reasoning multiple times, yet you seem unwilling to acknowledge it. Let's try this one more time: you're creating a false dichotomy that simply doesn't hold up under a materialist analysis.

You keep insisting that any open-source alternative is "near meaningless" because the ruling class will inevitably use technology for harmful purposes. This isn't a profound insight, it's a given in a capitalist system. Of course, the ruling class will exploit any technology to further its own interests, regardless of whether open-source options exist. No one is arguing that open-source magically stops corporate harm.

The part of the argument you're refusing to engage with is that a Marxist perspective doesn't simply throw its hands up and surrender to this reality. Our analysis isn't about wishing away corporate malfeasance. Instead, it's about understanding and engaging with the contradictions inherent in capitalist development.

I'm not arguing that open-source is a shield against corporate exploitation, rather that it's a potential point of rupture within the capitalist mode of production. It demonstrates a form of collaborative, non-proprietary development that, in its very essence, runs counter to the private ownership and monopolistic control that define capitalism.

To dismiss open-source as "meaningless" because the ruling class is evil is to abandon any attempt at revolutionary praxis within the technological sphere. It's to say, "because they'll do bad things, we should do nothing good." That's a profoundly un-Marxist and defeatist position.

The ruling class will indeed use technology for its own ends. Our task, as Marxists, isn't to bemoan this fact or reject technology wholesale. It's to understand how these technologies develop productive forces that can eventually serve as the basis for a communist society, and critically, to identify and leverage the contradictions like open-source that arise within capitalism, even if they seem small at the time.

Do you see now why simply focusing on the ruling class's inevitable misuse, without acknowledging the other side of the dialectic, leads to a dead end for Marxist thought?

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?

Whether there is an open version of this technology or not, does not change how capitalists will use it to extract more value from you. What will change however is that you will be forced to work as a digital serf using their tools as a service model.

Why would I advocate or want it’s use? It’s not going to make your job easier.

You're still missing the point, and it's a fundamental one for any Marxist analysis of technology. Advocating for open-source tools isn't about making an individual's job easier in a capitalist sense. It's about power, control, and building the foundations for a post-capitalist society.

The reason to champion open-source isn't a naive belief that it will halt corporate harm as corporations will exploit technology regardless. Open-source is crucial because it directly counters the monopolization of essential tools, preventing them from being solely instruments of corporate profit and control. It facilitates a practical form of collective ownership and control over the means of information production, enabling the socialization of knowledge vital for a communist future. Furthermore, open-source allows for the development of alternative technological infrastructures outside direct corporate influence, providing the material basis for independent organization and communication for revolutionary movements and marginalized groups.

So why should I cheer for it or be happy for it if it’s not being used for revolutionary purposes?

Why is it good for workers to own the means of production asks a self proclaimed Marxist.