35
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago

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?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

This is precisely what I've been trying to explain to people as well. Corporations will keep developing this technology. Nothing will stop this. It’s happening. So the only question that matters is: How will it be developed, and who controls it?

The irony is that fighting against the use of this tech outside corporations guarantees corps become its sole owners. The only rational path is to back community-driven development, just like any other open-source alternatives to corporate tools. Worker-owned. Community-controlled.

It’s mind-boggling that so many people fail to understand this.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You can tell the ones that got A's in their comp sci classes and C's in their core/non-major classes by how bloodthirsty they are.

Me, the enlightened centrist, just got C's in everything

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago

Every six months the tone of these "why won't you use my hallucinating slop generator" get more and more shrill.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago

I think his point that you basically give a slop generator a fitness function in the form of tests, compilation scripts, and static analysis thresholds, was pretty good. I never really thought of forcing the slop generator to generate slop randomly until it passes tests. That's a pretty interesting idea. Wasteful for sure, but I can see it saving someone a lot of time.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago

you basically give a slop generator a fitness function in the form of tests, compilation scripts, and static analysis thresholds, was pretty good.

forcing the slop generator to generate slop randomly until it passes tests.

I have to chuckle at this because it's practically the same way that you have to manage junior engineers, sometimes.

It really shows how barely "good enough" is killing off all the junior engineers, and once I die, who's going to replace me?

[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

This is absolutely the crisis of aging hitting the software engineering labor pool hard. There are other industries where 60% or more of the trained people are retiring in 5 years. Software is now on the fast track to get there as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (35 replies)
[-] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago

My party is trying their best to understand and implement AI and it's causing some friction within the party. The official stance that is now adopted is the one of 'we need to understand it and use it to our advantage' and 'we need to prevent AI being solely a thing of the ruling class' and to me that makes sense. I wasn't around at the time but I imagine it was the same with the coming of the internet some decades ago and we can see how that ended. I hope socialist orgs don't miss the boat this time.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

I think this is the best approach. I'm still wary, but this is the viewpoint I've been coming to understand.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

I think that's precisely the correct stance. As materialists we have to acknowledge that this technology exists, and that it's not going away. The focus has to be on who will control this tech and how it will be developed going forward.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
35 points (88.9% liked)

Technology

1134 readers
27 users here now

A tech news sub for communists

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS