At this point, anti-AI sentiment is just cope. AI is here to stay. For the people against AI, what is the praxis that must be undertaken against AI? AI, like any other tool, is lifeless but has living users that use, support, and develop it, so the question of praxis against AI becomes a question of praxis against workers who use, develop, and propagate AI.

This is why the Luddites failed. The Luddites had enough people to conduct organized raids, but the fact that those machinations were installed and continued to be installed by other workers meant that they represented a minority of workers. If they had a critical mass of workers on their side, those machinery would quite simply not be installed in the first place. Who else is going to install the machinery, the bourgeoisie, the gentry, and a bunch of merchants involved in human trafficking of Africans slaves?

Those looms didn't sprout legs and installed themselves. They were installed by other workers, workers who, for whatever reason, disagreed with the Luddite's praxis or ideology. Viewed in this context, it made sense why the Luddites failed in the end. Who cares if 500 looms got smashed by the Luddites if 600 looms got installed by non-Luddite workers anyways.

Corps are already starting to build underground data centers, so you and your plucky guerilla band of anti-AI insurgents can't just firebomb a data center that's build from a repurposed nuclear bunker. Pretty much all of the AI scientists who push the field forward are Chinese scientists safely located within the People's Republic of China, so liquidating AI scientists for being class traitors is out of the question. Then what else is left in terms of anti-AI praxis besides coping about it online and downvoting pro-AI articles from some cheap knockoff of R*ddit?

The argument that workers should capture AI instead of the ruling class is interesting, but let me ask you.

Has there been a single technology entirely captured and for the workers in history, ever? Has not every piece of technology been used primarily by the working class, yes, but the direction it develops and what value it produces is decided by the ruling class? Always has been unless we can remove them from controlling the mode of production..

I think China is an interesting example of this, where the worker's party controls the majority of the economy and wouldn't let a program like DeepSeek threaten to unemploy half of it's economy (America does probably have a larger segment dedicated to programming, though, silicon valley and all). Even then, the average worker there has more safety nets.

LLMs really might displace many software developers. That’s not a high horse we get to ride. Our jobs are just as much in tech’s line of fire as everybody else’s have been for the last 3 decades. We’re not East Coast dockworkers; we won’t stop progress on our own

why did I do computer science god I fucking hate every person in this field it's amazing how much of an idiot everyone is.

Thanks for sharing these AI posts.

Paid employment could mean retraining under socialism. Remember communism is moneyless, stateless and classless. The aim of society is the socialisation of all labour to free up time to do more leisure including art. People will still want art from humans without AI but there’s a difference between that and the preservation of regression through ludditism to maintain less productive paid labour.

Equating anti-capitalism to anti-corporatism, the appeal to ludditism, the defense of proprietorship, or the appeal to metaphysical creativity is not going to cut it, and that is a low bar to clear for marxists.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7917393/6409037

I find the tone kind of slapdash. Feel like the author could have condensed it to a small post about using AI agents in certain contexts, as that seems to be the crux of their argument for usefulness in programming.

I do think they have a valid point about some in tech acting squeamish about automation when their whole thing has been automation from day one. Though I also think the idea of AI doing "junior developer" level of work is going to backfire massively on the industry. Seniors start out as juniors and AI is not going to progress fast enough to replace seniors probably within decades (I could see it replacing some seniors, but not on the level of trust and competency that would allow it to replace all of them). But AI could replace a lot of juniors and effectively lock the field into a trajectory of aging itself out of existence, due to it being too hard for enough humans to get the needed experience to take over the senior roles.

Edit: I mean, it's already the case that dated systems sometimes use languages nobody is learning anymore. That kind of thing could get much worse.

See, for coding AI makes a lot of sense, since a lot of it is very tedious. You still need to understand the output to be able to debug it and make novel programs though, because the limitation is that the LLM can only recreate code its seen before in fairly generic configurations.

Counterpoint: Vibe Coding Will Rob Us of Our Freedom - IT Notes https://it-notes.dragas.net/2025/06/05/vibe-coding-will-rob-us-of-our-freedom/