73
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/technology@hexbear.net
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/74818680

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/08/msg00041.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 3 days ago (1 child)

unmoving and unchanging state of ownership and the permanence of bourgeois rule is presupposed

Are you saying that Awoo has a negative attitude towards AI because they aren't taking into account a possible future where we have revolutions, or otherwise seize the means of production? They are negating the agency of the working class to become organized, then fix the problems they raise? And since this might happen, it is treasonous against the future society to raise and perhaps even attempt to address the problems as they present themselves now?

It reminds me of that tech ideology (effective altruism? Or another one?) where they consider all potential future people as valuae as currently living people. So anything done today can be justified if in their theoretical future, it might result in an increase of humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    Is this how you read Capital? Snarking at any time Marx saw the silver lining in the creation of the industrial proletariat and the massive improvement in the concentration and power of industry like the chapter on cooperation?

    I just find it really short sighted and un-marxist, clinging to a version of the world now instead of fighting for a better one that is possible if we work together. You all have a very pessimistic view of the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Answer me a question: Where do workers get their power to fight from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    I assume you want me to say labour.

    But Communism is meant to stand above the battle for supremacy between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which, taken alone, is the realm of chartism and trade unionism.

    Taken dialectically, the mass unemployment of a strata of workers also causes massive repercussions for the stability of the capitalist system. Without workers earning wages, an integral part of the the circulation of capital, that of the reproduction of variable capital I.e. the consumption of goods and services by the proletariat is interrupted. This then causes shockwaves in the form of crises of overproduction that throw even more people into poverty, joblessness and disarray. This then produces opportunities for the proletariat to fight back against a weakened system that is no longer functioning to keep them fed and placid. The attack against labour invokes its opposite, an attack of labour against capital. It is at this point the communists put forth their argument - it is not enough to wring concessions from the ruling class that put you in this mess, you must seek to transform society by their overthrowal and by the collective and democratic ownership of the means of production.

    I can assure you that while a strike is a powerful weapon against the bourgeoisie, an uprising and revolt is certainly a greater power that doesn't rest simply on labour downing tools and not showing up to work.

    I understand the frustration against the way capital is wielding LLMs and similar technologies as a cudgel against tech and art workers in particular, but we have to think a level above the current clash between labour and capital. We have to think about the war not just the battle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago*

    Taken dialectically, the mass unemployment of a strata of workers also causes massive repercussions for the stability of the capitalist system. Without workers earning wages, an integral part of the the circulation of capital, that of the reproduction of variable capital I.e. the consumption of goods and services by the proletariat is interrupted. This then causes shockwaves in the form of crises of overproduction that throw even more people into poverty, joblessness and disarray. This then produces opportunities for the proletariat to fight back against a weakened system that is no longer functioning to keep them fed and placid. The attack against labour invokes its opposite, an attack of labour against capital. It is at this point the communists put forth their argument - it is not enough to wring concessions from the ruling class that put you in this mess, you must seek to transform society by their overthrowal and by the collective and democratic ownership of the means of production.

    Yes and this is all very bad for average people. Therefore which side of the struggle are we to take? One in favour of bringing about the conditions that will destroy the lives of working people or one in favour of protecting those lives?

    One side is accelerationism. The other is authentically fighting to protect the lives of average people.

    I can assure you that while a strike is a powerful weapon against the bourgeoisie, an uprising and revolt is certainly a greater power that doesn't rest simply on labour downing tools and not showing up to work.

    This won't be an uprising. It will be a war of survival. If bourgeoisie no longer need labour then the protection that the working class receives for its usefulness is removed. The bourgeoisie will recognise that the uprisings are existential for themselves, they will not seek to simply bring people back under control to exploit them because that incentive will be gone, they will seek to exterminate all threat to themselves. This can and will be carried out through any means necessary, including deadly chemical weapons at a mass and unprecedented scale. The bourgeoisie will seek to be the surviving class, then they will live in fully automated luxury and abundance after they win.

    Call me a revisionist but I do not think Marx was correct in his assumption that the contradiction could only resolve in one direction - an inevitable working class victory. Marx only envisioned a world in which the working class would be permanently necessary for their labour, he did not and could not imagine a world where the working class could have that taken away. When you do take that away this contradiction can resolve with a bourgeois victory as well. They can win and they can live in the communism that follows by themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent