this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
84 points (84.4% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
5891 readers
1 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How is this any different than the "you criticize society, yet you exist in it" rhetoric?
you don't need to use ai to live
Having AI being used to improve our lives and our material reality seems like a very good idea to me though...
How is it improving our lives?
Me and a lot of people I know use it to help learning new things, for example. Who wouldn't like a personal teacher to teach you what you need? That seems very useful to me.
that is an assumption you are allowed to have, which has very little to do with comparing a auxiliary piece of technology with the entire status quo of society.
machine learning has already been used very successfully in areas where it made sense, like protein folding. I'm sure more fruitful use cases will come in the future.
this whole tech-bro fueled generative "ai" crap, however, is just a sick bubble that is stealing from everyone and delivering only masticated generated crap, actively making everything worst and rupturing the fabric of reality.
it's peak late stage capitalism, trying to remove the little that is left of humanity from the system.
But how would AI image generation even come close to improving anyones life?
You don't need lemmy either, yet you post on it to make this argument. Curious.
This type of thing is reminiscent of when people say "you criticize capitalism, yet you post your criticism on twitter using iphone."
Ultimately, no matter the intention, invalidating in this kind of way loses sight of the message itself. It may be that drawing in this kind of nonsense "gotcha" is a reason not to use AI images for messaging, but people come up with all kinds of attempted gotchas regardless, so it's hard to take it seriously. To some extent, you are always going to be depending on and using the society's tools, even when opposing what it's doing, so if there's going to be an argument there against AI use for messaging, it really needs to be better than "it's not an essential need for human life."
uh? I never complained about lemmy, though...
you are seriously not understanding what people mean by "you criticize society, yet you exist in it". you're comparing a auxiliary piece of technology with the entire status quo of society.
using generative crap, which is born from the theft of millions of unwilling participants, to send socialist or humanist message is just plain ironic.
it's like waving a peace flag made from human skin.
But using a computer made from exploitative systems of production and distribution as part of a global capitalist supply chain to post on a website is free of any attachments to exploitation, right? You don't seem to understand that simply pointing at generic "it's connected to capitalist bad" argument does not really mean anything, when capitalism's reach is so far and so difficult to avoid. Also, comparing training on artists' work without getting their permission to a flag made of human skin is not only unjustifiably gross shock value rhetoric, it's trivializing of actual barbarity that is ongoing in the world, like, I don't know, migrant children being separated from their parents.
There are reasonable criticisms of generative AI. This isn't it. It's garden-variety "you're a hypocrite" stuff that comes out sounding like concern-trolling.
dude, you could take a piece of paper and draw it. on the other hand, you can't reasonable live nowadays without a computer.
The point, which you clearly miss at every turn, is that yes we create suffering in every aspect of modern life, but to strive to cause the least amount of suffering is the point.
Things connected to capitalism are bad. Full stop. There is no part of this system that provides ANYTHING but wealth to a small group of people. The way AI has been literally force-fed into our lives is proof that it is nothing but another tool of capitalism used to both create wealth from those with nothing and maintain control to keep that wealth coming. That's it. Any "advancements" all serve that idea while the people doing the advancing have no control over how those advances are used.
Look, I get it. You don't value art or the process of art. You don't value ownership of the self and what the self produces. A lot of you pro AI folks are like this, because whether your like it or not your lack of creativity, mind you likely a product of the very system cramming AI down your throat, devalues creativity. You jump at the next AI automated car from Tesla or you vibe code and see anything it produces as something YOU made... but you didn't. That picture up there was made by a countless number of artist's experiences mushed together in a machine and squeezed out like a turd and you guys are like "OH LOOK THIS IS MEANINGFUL". Like I said... pathetic.
That's a lot of nasty words that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Not even really sure what to say. It's mostly a pile of anger vent at tech bros and I'm far from that.
I don't really want to try to engage with the argument about when something is harm reduction and when it's boxing yourself in out of a misguided sense of idealism, with someone who thinks the world is devils and angels, and that I'm a devil.
It is anger. It's justifiable anger. I'm not sure about the nasty words part, but ok.
No the world isn't devils and angels; it's devils. Attempting to not be less devilish is the point.
Misguided idealism... now that's funny. Oh no I want things to be fair and good for the majority of all living things without it being taken off the backs of others! Yeah I'm the bad guy in this one all right.
I think you misunderstand what I mean about the possibility of misguided idealism (which is just a possibility, not a personal attack accusation). I think it's safe to say something that everyone in this community you're posting in shares, is a strong belief in wanting "things to be fair and good for the majority of all living things without it being taken off the backs of others". It's not about whether you are personally the "good guy" or the "bad guy".
The question is persistently: How do we get from where we are now to "things are fair and good for the majority of all living things without it being taken off the backs of others"? The idealistic view might suggest that if we all just choose to behave better as individuals, the problems will be solved. Another form of idealistic view might suggest that we can force things to immediately be fixed with enough organized willpower, without any sort of transition period.
So what I am talking about there, is whether boycotting of AI constitutes something that is worth the promoting of, especially on an individualist level. Or if doing so is more just an idealistic notion that it'll have some power to affect change that it won't have, born of a desire for a sense of purity. If you want some more perspective on what I'm getting at when I say purity, I recommend this piece: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Western_Marxism,_the_fetish_for_defeat,_and_Christian_culture