> By its developers’ own admission, ‘AI’ is meant to enable control of population that subverts, and overpowers, all existing political apparatuses, and which, by design, is meant to substitute people’s capacity to make their judgements.
Are those claims from the start true? Have the labs or inventors of AI said things like that AI is “meant” to do those things like “subvert” all existing political apparatuses?
(Ideally the page would have added source links for the claims.)
Almost all of the grievances directed at AI come from unchecked hyperstitionalized capitalism. So why not try to fix that rather than blame technology? Even if you abolish AI you'd have exactly the same problems, and then some.
TBF the article does identify this, but then it seems to put the cart before the horse.
Not that I agree with the article, but these arguments fall pretty flat: People can imagine the end of the world more easily than imagining the end of capitalism. Banning a particular technology would be a much easier thing to do, and even if it didn’t totally solve the problem, halfway solutions or delaying the inevitable is generally better than doing nothing at all (if less cathartic/satisfying).
Again, I don’t agree that we should ban AI, but that’s more because I believe it can actually be a force for good. If I didn’t believe that though, it would be tactically correct to try to ban it.
They argue AI abolition is only possible alongside the abolition of capitalism, since AI's harms are integral to capitalism itself.
Their idea of AI abolition aims at a liberatory alternative, which they define as "a revolution from the left as an alternative to global technofascism."
The above is my personal selection from what glm-5.3 responded with to my question "What's the main point of this?" asked in the web browser that I created myself using agents that has an agent chat embedded where I can ask it to read and manipulate any page I'm viewing.
> arguing about competing definitions of AI is distracting our eyes from the actual prize: an urgently needed revolution from the left.
> it is worth reminding ourselves that not only are alternatives imaginable; they are also feasible and realistic, as for the most of human history — for the absolutely longest time of our human existence on earth — we humans lived without slavery; lived without prisons; lived without police; lived in communities without cisheteropatriarchal norms; and lived without AI.
The word ‘cisheteropatriarchal’ really brings it home. Of course humans have lived without many of those things, as have we without vaccines, electricity, and staple crops that feed billions. I’m still an idealistic at heart (hi Berlin!), but the manifesto is severely weakened by going off-topic.
From the first paragraph:
> By its developers’ own admission, ‘AI’ is meant to enable control of population that subverts, and overpowers, all existing political apparatuses, and which, by design, is meant to substitute people’s capacity to make their judgements.
Are those claims from the start true? Have the labs or inventors of AI said things like that AI is “meant” to do those things like “subvert” all existing political apparatuses?
(Ideally the page would have added source links for the claims.)
Well there's the Network State movement which people like Thiel and Altman are supporters of, see e.g. https://www.praxisnation.com/
No. It's just slop.
abolish calculators!
"You can't fix social issues through tech axis"
Almost all of the grievances directed at AI come from unchecked hyperstitionalized capitalism. So why not try to fix that rather than blame technology? Even if you abolish AI you'd have exactly the same problems, and then some.
TBF the article does identify this, but then it seems to put the cart before the horse.
Not that I agree with the article, but these arguments fall pretty flat: People can imagine the end of the world more easily than imagining the end of capitalism. Banning a particular technology would be a much easier thing to do, and even if it didn’t totally solve the problem, halfway solutions or delaying the inevitable is generally better than doing nothing at all (if less cathartic/satisfying).
Again, I don’t agree that we should ban AI, but that’s more because I believe it can actually be a force for good. If I didn’t believe that though, it would be tactically correct to try to ban it.
How would you go about this given that it's the current WorldOS?
tl;dr
They argue AI abolition is only possible alongside the abolition of capitalism, since AI's harms are integral to capitalism itself.
Their idea of AI abolition aims at a liberatory alternative, which they define as "a revolution from the left as an alternative to global technofascism."
The above is my personal selection from what glm-5.3 responded with to my question "What's the main point of this?" asked in the web browser that I created myself using agents that has an agent chat embedded where I can ask it to read and manipulate any page I'm viewing.
capitalism is the only thing that can destroy itself. communism wont lead to abundance
[dead]
[flagged]
> arguing about competing definitions of AI is distracting our eyes from the actual prize: an urgently needed revolution from the left.
> it is worth reminding ourselves that not only are alternatives imaginable; they are also feasible and realistic, as for the most of human history — for the absolutely longest time of our human existence on earth — we humans lived without slavery; lived without prisons; lived without police; lived in communities without cisheteropatriarchal norms; and lived without AI.
Delusional utopianism.
The word ‘cisheteropatriarchal’ really brings it home. Of course humans have lived without many of those things, as have we without vaccines, electricity, and staple crops that feed billions. I’m still an idealistic at heart (hi Berlin!), but the manifesto is severely weakened by going off-topic.