Who is Espeglia Gonzales? Is that the guy in the pic? I never heard of him and google didn't turn up anything

Idk why you're getting so many downvotes, this is the "brand new sentence" comm, as far as I can tell, you're fucking killing it

Kinda want to engage with your ideas but I don't know if it would be productive.

Grok, give me a passage from Marx that supports AI

You kids like Marx, right? You'll never believe what he thought about ~~mass surveillance tech~~ Artificial Intelligence

Actually, no, you can't just pick a quote out of the middle of Chapter 15 to make a point about AI. This section is about the natural development of consciousness of the workers, after spending a lot of time describing the objective and subjective historical factors that led to the development and adoption of machinery, and the way it works upon the working class, our bodies and our minds.

The passage does not mean, "don't blame machines (AI,)" Marx was not a moralist or a categorical analyst. This section covers some 200 years of history of industry throughout the globe, and continues with the organization of workers as a means to fight the capitalist (and the capitalist responses to such organizing.) Section 5 is conspicuously a section full of tables and factual accounting, not imperatives and conclusions.

"AI is just a tool, machines are indifferent" is the common perspective this image is supposed to lead us to. but this whole very long chapter begins with a detailed analysis distinguishing the tool from the machine. A theme that comes up often is how workers don't use machines in production, the machines, as private capital, use the workers.

No doubt [the capitalist] is far from denying that temporary inconvenience may result from the capitalist use of machinery. But where is the medal without its reverse! Any employment of machinery, except by capital, is to him an impossibility. Exploitation of the workman by the machine is therefore, with him, identical with exploitation of the machine by the workman. Whoever, therefore, exposes the real state of things in the capitalistic employment of machinery, is against its employment in any way, and is an enemy of social progress! Exactly the reasoning of the celebrated Bill Sykes. “Gentlemen of the jury, no doubt the throat of this commercial traveller has been cut. But that is not my fault, it is the fault of the knife. Must we, for such a temporary inconvenience, abolish the use of the knife? Only consider! where would agriculture and trade be without the knife? Is it not as salutary in surgery, as it is knowing in anatomy? And in addition a willing help at the festive board? If you abolish the knife — you hurl us back into the depths of barbarism.”

-- Section 6

The footnotes to this passage continue to elaborate on the opportunistic and biased conflation of tools with machines.

If there is a summarized point to be made of chapter 15, it is that unchecked automation leads to the destruction of the minds and bodies of workers, which become composed of children and elderly, lengthening of the workdays, and dissolution of social stability by way of a division of labor driven by private profit seeking.

But it also goes into how this extreme degradation leads to the adoption of various laws and regulations on industry -- and how industry's ever-shifting nature essentially develops to a point where such regulations become practically irrelevant shortly after their adoption.

Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — the soil and the labourer.

-- end of sec 9

There is one major blindspot IMO: this Chapter does not account for real, blatant, total control of the political apparatus of society as we have in the USA and the West. Everything explored here is shown to be a somewhat "natural" outcome of development of technology and machinery based on the intrinsic logic of private property relations and capitalism. It does not cover the way AI is controlled by and being used by eugenicist accellerationists who have seized a monopoly of not only industrial production, but also political power.

So, no, this line is not about AI. It is about the industrial revolution that occurred in England between approx. 1650 until about 1860. Marx's analysis of industrialization is relevant, but IMO you can't cherry pick a line from this chapter to understand any modern circumstance, without confusing his views and the subject to an immense degree.

The plot to Infinite Jest

You gotta love the fucking arrows. 20th century communism, famous for spreading beyond national borders and not like mostly abandoning or even sabotaging decolonial struggles in the 50s and 60s.

I love watching "progressives" turn into Ronald fucking Reagan the moment someone suggests a movement other than brunch clubs

My boy is a hero for not allowing his contacts to become states evidence

Turning this feature on right now, thanks for the reminder

Boy this story sure is getting a lot of publicity. Makes you wonder why. I forgot about this feature on Graphene phones, I'm gonna turn it on right now

Oh god, Destiny 2. Do I hate it? I'm not sure. I def don't like it and don't play it anymore. Something like, 1400 hours over covid, probably more. Sometimes I pick it back up and play for like 15 minutes and the feeling of meh is so overwhelming I wanna throw the controller. I got all the guns I'll ever need, my armor is completely maxxed out on multiple sets. My drip is impeccable. All of it is kinda worthless now because I couldn't tolerate the seasonal grind any longer. Having to go back to zero every 3 months when I've already mastered everything is gut wrenching for a completionist. "Oh you have to try this new gun, new build." Yeah and once I get it, a month later it will get balanced into oblivion.

Regarding the resurgence of socialism, Fukuyama comments, “If you mean redistributive programmes that try to redress this big imbalance in both incomes and wealth that has emerged then, yes, I think not only can it come back, it ought to come back.”

-- New Statesman, 2018