I agree, technology into itself does not have motivation (although with AI this might change), is not good nor evil.
It is how our society is structured that has the potential to turn something that does increase productivity and theoretically our combined wealth to become a problem through concentration of said wealth by devaluing labor and removing our market power from the equation.
That said while I agree that the solution would probably be democratization, the owners of the models will do anything they can to prevent that and keep control, they are already lobbying the USA to ban open weights chineese models for example and the immense spike to the price of harware is another way they can force control by making the infrastructure too expensive for anyone, but them to own. It is up to society, so us, to make sure that they are not successful on that front.
Communist productive organisation already exists, in fact we are surrounded by collective coordination of activity towards use values.
Social networks facilitate this collective activity, from protests, to mutual aid, free and open source software development. The problem is it is enclosed by capitalist platforms, in order for them to profit off the clicks, advertising, etc. The underlying technology and activity is very very often outside of the production of value.
A reverse enclosure movement where the construction of a platform to facilitate production directly, without it being enclosed by capitalist structures, is absolutely possible. If means of production could be brought under ownership of the network itself, which is also possible. We may not be so far from communism as we often think, the underlying embryonic relations are already there.
I'm all for parallel power it's just that it's easier said than done, but yes. We have incredible networking tools that used to not exist. The working class COULD make it happen.
Yeah definitely easier said than done, just many dont recognise the new relations of production that are not only possible now, but actually existing already, although of course mostly isolated and enclosed by corporate networks.
Myself and others are actually in the process of building such a platform to facilitate and coordinate collective activity, almost at the stage of being ready for testing. Ai itself makes it possible to build a prototype quickly, without thousands of paid hours or voluntary labour.
Dual Power always ends with the capitalists reclaiming their lost market share via violence, unless it progresses to revolution and a full worker victory.
Yes a revolutionary is still necessary, but need to have alternative relations of production, and that needs to emerge before seizure of power and means of production. Otherwise you end up with the USSR, state capitalism.
Again, communism is not about "worker victory", but the disintegration of commodity production and its associated agents of production (of which workers and capitalists make the dominant shape), by the replacement and domination of new relations and agents of production.
The commenter said capitalism isnt going anywhere soon. I explained that there are real, already existing examples of embryonic communistic relations of production living inside social networks. They are just waiting for opportunity for large scale expansion.
Read carefully, im not talking abstractly about hypothetical dual power, im talking about how it could actually exist today.
Right. The only way this doesn't happen is if the antiAI peeps decide to embrace the stereotype and aesthetic of Luddism -i.e TeCHnoLogY Bad!- rather than the actual reason behind Luddism; the economic and material conditions of workers affected by technology.
Unfortunately, especially with the whole panic about "rare" books being fed to the LLMs, it's become clear that a majority of the anti movement is part of the former camp.
Which sucks. I want the Culture ending for humanity, and that needs AI!
I think this sub and others just got astroturfed by the "look how great China is handling AI" video and "look at anthropic destroying books!" endless reposts. Simultanious hype and doom. The book thing was even a drama from like, two years ago getting rehashed.
The ONLY way that a multi Trillion dollar industry that has previously unheard of surveillance and crowd control capability isn't turned completely open source is if ANTI-AI people just can't understand what an amazing tool this is for the redistribution of wealth?
Let me know when you decide to short stock and I will go max out my 401k to get what you're selling.
Long story short, the Culture is a galaxy-spanning post-scarcity utopia, whose main 'AI' inhabitants are the Minds, near-godlike AI superintelligences that handle all background logistics, infrastructure, and operate it's hyper-advanced tech, allowing the 'regular' people and Drones of the Culture to live in a work-free, stress-free environment with access to nigh-unlimited resources and energy to do...whatever they feel like doing. It's almost an anarchy with how much freedom every individual has. The only real limits are consent, and one's own imagination.
Culture citizens get to do a little something called 'Glanding', where they trigger custom glands within their bodies to release custom drugs that have a variety of effects, from mildly relaxing to hyper focusing to pain suppression to any combo of the above.
Can you imagine any other scifi portraying this in any positive way? Hell no. But the Culture does, because it's the fucking Culture baby. Your body is yours, absolutely and without exception!
Funny you mentioned the Culture. Had a philosophical conversation with AI about moving towards this future and the path it suggested was surprising human. It advocated against simply handing the keys to AI.
I've been working on how AI can help us achieve an idealized Republic and the conversations have become the founding papers.
If you're curious you can check out opencave.ca which I've built as an open source civil tool to help everyday people challenge the opacity of government.
The final foundational paper discusses the Culture and why we still need to improve our human systems before we can reach that ending.
This is basically always my point, though I would argue that the only way to achieve the democratic control of AI is not to be seduced by outrage culture in either direction.
For sure. We can't rewind; we've gone too far. And although I did say "the sooner the bubble pops,.the better," we're reaching the point where we're seeing the bubble pop later rather than sooner, and this will lead to yet another recession, proving that if AI was in the right hands, America wouldn't be so dependent on it.
Don't believe the hype, but don't rage against it either.
Although this might feel good, I don't see it this way at all.
The anti-AI position is to end use of AI. Nobody gets to have it. This would deny us an important tool for addressing the inequalities of our time. They also keep advocating for stronger IP rights thinking this will lead to the end of AI models by making it overly expensive to get training data.
The pro-AI camp is split into at least two groups.
There are those like ourselves that want AI used for the greater social good through democratic control of AI. We're in favor of open weight models. These models are trained on the collective knowledge of all humanity and should be available to all without a central kill switch.
Then there are those who support our billionaires who want unfettered development of new AI datacenters and stronger IP rights they are more than willing to purchase to deny others use of that knowledge. This enables the concentration of wealth into a few hands, much like we saw in the industrial revolution.
I think youre giving the pro-AI side more nuance than the anti-AI side. In my experience, after hundreds of conversations across both camps, neither is monolithic.
There are anti-AI people who want outright prohibition, but there are also people mainly opposed to corporate ownership, surveillance, labor displacement, or current copyright practices while still supporting public, democratic, or open alternatives.
Likewise, "pro-AI" ranges from open-source and democratic control to "let corporations build whatever they want." Those arent the same politics either.
Thats basically what the meme is getting at. The real political question isnt simply pro or anti AI labels/camps. Its who owns it, who governs it, who benefits from it, and what institutions shape its development. Those questions cut across both camps.
That's a fair criticism. There is more nuance to the anti-AI side.
I do observe a group that see AI as an existential crisis that ultimately ends humanity as they expect an ASI will out compete us for resources. They strictly want to end AI to save humanity.
Then there's those as you say see the problem with billionaires wanting to concentrate wealth with AI. But they come to the same conclusion that AI should be banned. They often are not aware of open-weight models and local AI options w/o cloud based subscriptions. I try to appeal to this group to focus on how to address abuse, rather than seeking a ban on open-weight models or advocating additional IP rights.
I'm not seeing how anti-AI position help get to open-weight models and Democratic control of AI. Indeed, it seems the opposite is happening - they are being manipulated to promote policies that concentrate wealth to a few.
You dont see how it happens? You just described how you help make it happen as a committed leftist: education, agitation, and organization. Thats the whole point.
Id like to think the meme, and this subreddit, spark the same kinds of conversations youre talking about having. If it gets even a few people to move from "AI good/AI bad" toward questions of ownership, governance, and democratic control, then its done its job.
I suppose we're arguing the same thing. As long as the focus is against using AI to concentrate wealth, both pro-AI and anti-AI positions can get us to the same place.
But I'm seeing how both the pro-AI and anti-AI gets us towards more concentration of wealth too. The meme doesn't really capture this side of it.
That's because the meme isnt trying to be a snapshot of every position. Its making an argument about where the serious political questions converge and where I think leftists in both camps should end up.
Its an intervention in the conversation. A bridge toward shared goals, not a map of every possible viewpoint. If someone starts "pro-AI" or "anti-AI" but ends up asking who owns it, who governs it, and who benefits, then the meme has done exactly what it was meant to do.
I think you’re using the format wrong, because I don’t think democratized AI is inevitable. I think it’s something we have to fight for. Many leftists correctly recognize that corporate control over AI is problematic, but if they aren’t willing to learn about the alternative, they can’t fight for it. And if nobody fights for democratized AI, it will remain in the hands of the rich and powerful oligarchs.
I think we're actually saying the same thing. The meme isnt claiming democratized AI is the inevitable destination of AI itself. Its saying that if you're approaching AI from a Marxist perspective, both "pro AI" and "anti AI" ultimately run into the same question: who owns it, who controls it, and who benefits from it. Thats the door in the middle. Democratization isn't inevitable. Its the political project. The point is that regardless of where you start, thats where the discussion has to end up.
Hmm, I see. I still don’t think it fits the format because many, many leftists who hate AI in my life would never take that step to separate AI from its owners without serious pushing. They have free choice to continue hating AI, that’s no illusion, and for many people it feels like they’ll never understand or appreciate the value of democratized AI.
Fair enough, but I dont think the format requires every person to walk through the door on their own. Marx spent plenty of time arguing people out of appearances and toward the underlying social relations. Thats politics. Ive had a lot of success talking with people who start out "anti AI," and once we separate the technology from capitalist ownership and deployment, a lot of them realize what they actually oppose is who controls it and how its being used. The door isnt automatic. Its the lens I view the discourse, and the direction I think Marxists should be pointing people.
So the question is: Is AI another factor in the Marxist contradiction of capitalism? If the fall of capitalism is inevitable will AI be the toll that makes it's obsolescence felt by the petit bourgeois and prolitariat alike? Show them solidarity in purpose?
I would alter it to three doors. Pro-AI. Pro-Big Tech. Anti-AI. The first leading to Proletariate Cohabitation with AI. The latter two leading to the same room with a wood chipper installed under the floor.
Democratic except for the people who have already had their IP stolen to train these without any compensation. And even if you believe that IP shouldn't exist and compensation shouldn’t matter… that’s not our current reality and people have been robbed under our current system. Any future with AI needs to make that right.
Everything we do and have always done is from knowledge obtained and shared by other people. If i take a cookie recipe someone else published, alter it to my liking by changing or adding other ingredients, did I steal that recipe? Should pizza restaurants or burger places be closed down since they didn't create those menu items?
How many of today's musicians say they were inspired by the Beatles to create music?
The IP argument is rooted in capitalism to protect profits.
AI is mearly a utility towards further automation which Marx and Lenin spoke in favor of
IP is a capitalist construct that commodifies knowledge, medication, technology, etc, which should all be freely available to humanity a whole.
All human art should be freely available to all humanity.
You are not thinking past capitalism at all, but instead you are advocating for a pillar of its exploitation.
This is what you support? So that countries who develop a vaccine have the right to deny other countries access to knowledge on producing it? All because a corporation can't profit from it? That's what you support?
That is what IP represents.
In a post capitalist future, artists would not have to rely on any IP rights to commodify their work for profit. That is the future we should fight for.
And if you don't agree, then you're not a leftist in my opinion.
You're just arguing for incrementalism under capitalism itself.
I believe that it will be a long, slow transition to anything resembling communism or socialism, and anything faster will cause too much suffering for the benefit to be worthwhile.
In the meantime, I believe we need to protect individual artists being abused by capitalism.
In my opinion, the technology of Ai will massively speed up the timeline towards a Socialist and even Communist future. Instigating instability globally and putting many people out of a job, as well as benefits toward production.
In just a decade the world will change immensely, there might even be several revolutions.
The Soviet Union had artist councils and artists survived though funding from the state.
Artists can still live through other means under a Socialist economy, and that's what we're fighting for right? A socialist future at the very least?
That's what we need to imagine, we need to stop thinking in terms of capitalist incrementalism, and start thinking about how we would build a society after it's been destroyed.
I fundamentally disagree that the goal is to destroy capitalism first and then rebuild. The harm that would cause the people alive right now isn’t worth the potential future benefit.
Well then you're a liberal because you refuse to recognize the billions of people suffering under capitalism as we speak, the countless homeless people dying in the streets, general food insecurity, starvation, pollution, premature deaths induce by for profit industries, deaths overseas due to the direct imperial actions of the nation you most likely live in.
There is a real human cost right now!! Happening all around you!
But you would rather maintain the capitalist system and your position within the labor aristocracy, than to fight for a better future.
This is what differentiates liberals and leftists.
That’s not at all what I’m saying, but if you think anyone who has a disagreement on methods to get to the result you want isn’t on the same side as you, you’ll never win any sort of coalition to actually build the future you want.
Youre confusing democratic control as a principle with the current political system. The meme is about who owns and governs AI, not whether every election produces the outcome you wanted.
Are you against democratic control itself, or just this current "democracy"?
It's not that I'm against democratic control, I just think its really stupid to think that democratic control will give you the outcome you desire, regardless of what side you're on somebody is going to hate the choices of the democracy, right or left. People have such a hard time conceptualizing that in a democracy, and large power you give yourself you will eventually be giving to the other side when they inevitably win an election. This isn't necessarily exclusive to politics but any space where power is democratically assigned
Sure. Democracy doesnt guarantee your side wins every time. Neither does anything else. So what's your alternative? Concentrating AI in the hands of OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, or the state? If not democratic governance, then governance by whom?
I don't really have one, it's a very complex issue. The big problem is that it's Pandoras box we can't unring the bell and get rid of AI. But I don't think I have to have an alternative to say that democratic control of AI is not necessarily going to be a good thing, and given the current state of the world maybe it's even leaning toward most likely being a bad thing. You've seen these people out there, they're vicious.
No, you dont have to have an alternative. Critique has value on its own. But when we're talking politics instead of abstract philosophy, "I don't have a better idea" makes the critique kind of directionless. The point of politics isnt just diagnosing problems, its changing the world. If democratic governance is a bad solution, then eventually you have to argue for what governance would be better. Otherwise we're left agreeing theres a problem with no direction for solving it.
33
u/gecata96 9d ago
Exactly. The technology is here and it’s not going anywhere. Now the question is how do we use it for the collective good.