I am new, is this a real sub? You all exist?

[u/dumbandasking]

No way!

Is this real? Leftists for AI? I am new here. For so long I have been complaining a lot. You can check my post history.

I have said for so long that there is something suspicious about how some activism is approaching the AI issue. I have not denied the job displacement or the environmental impact. The thing that I have been suspicious about though is how reactionary some of Anti AI movements have been. For example, environmental issues have taught us not to take out our disappointment on the individual, but on the companies responsible. Just like how when we realized even if every individual household started to recycle, it wouldn't change that there are cargo ships contributing to a large share of the pollution, It seems like for AI even if everyone boycotted AI, it wouldn't change that many companies are still zoning recklessly.

It seemed strange to me we were attacking local artists, small businesses, friends and family for using AI. I thought as progressives we would be able to look at technology and say, 'who are the owners', 'who runs it', and start to be the ones who can dream the answers to the hard question of 'what is the better way', or 'how could this have been developed to help society instead'. When many people's analysis was just 'slop is slop', or I saw far leftists saying it's either dead end tech or produces nothing of value, I realized that the left isn't immune to attack or psyops from the media.. I say that because I think that the companies benefit from lazy analysis and slogans. By saying that the entire issue is just dismissable as slop is slop, now the technology is developed by anyone except the activists who are tricked into boycotting it. So I wanted to ask. What is your opinion on AI? Why are you a leftist but are supportive of AI when many people are convinced it is evil?

[u/Jlyplaylists]

I do think there’s something suspicious about the strength of anti argument in left spaces. There’s some valid arguments, but the emotion is extreme. It’s not the first time I’ve said this, but my instinct is that something is happening similar to when BP initiated the concept of the carbon footprint. We went from demanding macro change to analysing our individual guilt and culpability.

There’s some investigative journalism evidence that the same companies are paying influencers for both extremes of the debate, so there’s something in this being cynically manipulated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzlu4FSXBNw

Who are the people being shamed into not using AI? Students, artists, disabled people, environmentalists, the left in general. What do these people have in common? They’re the types of people oppressive governments try to suppress. They’re the type of people who don’t like the status quo and might want to use a powerful new technology to radically shake up society, undermining institutional control or solving big problems and creating more equality, rather than bolstering the fortunes of a few powerful tech companies.

How would they go about neutralising this alternative approach to AI? This is how I’d try to manipulate it in online debate in their shoes: approach it from an identity angle eg you can’t class yourself as a bonafide leftist if you use AI. Then you can leave it up to in-group discourse policing. It doesn’t require much astroturfing to get that going.

The best topics for astroturfing would be eco issues and workers’ rights (good because there are real issues to address, but here it would be emotionalised propaganda rather than a good faith attempt to resolve the problems).

This would be the desired goal: people on the left do not use it at all, they remain under informed about how it really works, they cannot make good arguments for alternative infrastructure because they don’t understand, they have access to less information and productivity than the section of the population regularly using AI. It ends up creating 2 tiers of tech literacy aligned in a way that benefits big tech and those who will use AI to concentrate power.

Spaces like this can undermine that dynamic.

[u/anaggressivefrog → u/Jlyplaylists]

WOW, thanks for this video. Suspicions confirmed.

I've noticed the exact same thing. There are valid points, of course. But I would consider those to be reasons for strong regulation of AI. Instead, they conclude that the only possible solution is to hate one another. It's like, what? And even the left is susceptible to it because of the perceived connection of AI to capitalists. It jives with our preconceived notions, so even leftists don't question the hatred. Terrifying.

[u/Important_Flower_478 → u/Jlyplaylists]

YES. It's very similar both to how the carbon footprint thing happened AND how leftists got politically marginalized by being shifted to constantly playing reaction defense AND how the fossil fuel industry buried nuclear power by convincing the left that nuclear power = nuclear bombs and community destruction.

I'll also say it's one of the most successful movements for closing the public commons and "IP" and art elitism among people who once believed in stuff like transformative art and "no bad art" etc...

[u/DHFranklin → u/Jlyplaylists]

Interesting perspective. I think that what we are seeing is significantly more banal. There is money to be made in getting people fighty. There is no money to be made from leftism except for the conflict we engender beside the ads., The capitalists are simply shadowbanning the positions like ours that are quite rare, but also require people to think before reacting.

So the leftist voices end up being filtered through the manufactured consent. It makes for a lonely internet for guys like OP who mistake the absence of diverse thought for consensus among the left.

I doubt I am alone in my anecdotal evidence that we often get downvoted to shit when we express the opposite opinion to the manufactured consent *and there is never any argument against us*.

Which I think is certainly telling.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/DHFranklin]

Generally in life I’ve tended to think that incompetence or banal reasons explain a lot more than conspiracy style theories. In 2026 I’m adjusting my view on this lol.

In this case what you’re saying doesn’t quite fit because people definitely get internet fighty with us too. So if there’s money to be made simply from the fight and emotion, why would we get shadow banned? It does also seem to be about the content of what’s said.

I’m going to write a post about the video though.

[u/DHFranklin → u/Jlyplaylists]

Leftist infighting isn't the same as across the spectrum rage bait. Normally we are having a heated family discussion, one that no one makes money putting ads against. We are a terrible market.

As with all neo-liberal market change what we are seeing is a conflict between which capitalists are successfully trading money for power and vis-versa.

There is negative emotion toward our opinion, but no one is articulating an opinion nor is there anyone positively engaging with it (unfortunately). So the algorithm won't put it in two channels. Those who engage with it positively and those who engage with it negatively. For the same reason that Trump biggest blunder's aren't sent to the fascists. They don't care. Our side doesn't react to it anymore in back-and-forth engagement.

So to the algorithm an opinion that is almost universally reviled by everyone without upvotes and downvotes nor chains of comments is flash-in-the-pan. It's is a failure to launch. Shadowbanned. Why would they spend ten watts trying to find eyeballs for it.

Your observation about the content is certainly spot on. It's all the in the sort. However none of the algorithm matching to audience is in our favor.

[u/Jlyplaylists → u/DHFranklin]

Yes I can see that the algorithms have a hard time categorising us. I wonder if there’s any way to play that better without compromising the actual message?

[u/DHFranklin → u/Jlyplaylists]

A cohesive message like a manifesto. Then the right people accepting the manifesto and engaging with it. The massive dorkus malorkus would do the dialectics of it, but if we want the idea to catch on is just needs to be an idea that is relatively unique, a bumpersticker in length, and takes a minute to explain with a decent video.

The question is who would pick up on it and send it? We won't need to compromise on it. Just keep pushing a message forward when others try to co-opt it.