Post

i think a core beef that i have with a lot of this "automation is bad" sentiment lately is that there is no inherent moral good in laboring the story of humanity is one of invention, where we improve our conditions by building things that help us do more things more easily

This post is unavailable.

sort of along my recent repost, the issue at hand has been the same since the dawn of capitalism: when automation increases productivity, who gets to capture the value of that productivity increase? the beef is not with the productivity. it's with the value capture

a thing i've been thinking about posting for a long time is "back in those days, the workers didn't say "eww factories were created by capitalists to enrich capitalists, we should abandon factories" they said "we should seize them and direct their output for the good of humanity"

23 reposts199 likes

I think the difference is despite the flaws it is easy to see how factories produce things that benefit people. A textile factory is going to make a blanket that keeps you warm, meat processing will keep you fed. Modern tech's benefits are niche

I understand where you're coming from, but I also think it's worth thinking about the fact that the split in tone here is along the lines of people who are currently financially stable and the people whose livelihoods are *presently* being eroded by these technologies with no upside in sight.

If you think there's an upside to building this technology so it can be captured by labour, I think there needs to be an actual story being told about how that can actually be accomplished. Because otherwise, people whose careers are being destroyed today are just being told to stop resenting it!

Again, I don't think your intentions are bad here - but I think to change minds here, people would need to hear something practical about how things could actually change *in this instance* instead of the same cycle continuing where capital captures all value while eroding labour's share.

This is more or less the crux of the issue for me. I am not actively hostile toward this new crop of AI technology, but I am generally hostile toward the SaaSification that enables the consolidation of its benefits in the capital class. Either we all own it or no one owns it.

yeah, i fully agree that presenting a good future is important, just like, for any political project generally. i think that i struggle to have *any* conversation about these things at all because it immediately gets so heated

verily

Ted Underwood@tedunderwood.com

Imagine you time travel back to 1847 and you find the left response to industrialization is a) machines will never be as good as human weavers or b) we need to copyright loom patterns or c) it’s a speculative bubble. You’d say “Y’all. Not helping. What you need is obviously a labor movement.”

and i'm not the first to say this, but it is a grave mistake that folks want to cede an important technology to the right we fight for technology so that we can direct it towards good ends. we don't just let the other side take good tools because we don't like how they use those tools

And maybe people who have a material interest in shutting some kinds of technology down shouldn't be the ones leading our opinions about said technology. Maybe Marxists should be capable of thinking in terms of material interests. Just a thought.

I find this especially weird when applied to existing open freely downloadable models that can run on your own hardware. You can hate how they were made, but not using them is like saying "I won't use this entire class of algorithms because bad people invented them".

I've seen more embrace on the anarcho-left side I think the general rejection of copyright/IP in that space means they don't have to worry about one of the major hurdles for folks closer to the center-left

Yes, there's an argument some on the Left refuse to engage with:

chbarts@chbarts.bsky.social

And maybe people who have a material interest in shutting some kinds of technology down shouldn't be the ones leading our opinions about said technology. Maybe Marxists should be capable of thinking in terms of material interests. Just a thought.

I'll admit that some of my unease comes from my own growing suspicion of anything that leads to "scale" because so much of it gets coopted into tech that's anti-humanity ("big data" tools powering oppressive systems, etc) Dunno what the right answer is here

big data can surveil demonstrators and it can also help us grow more and better food. it's all in how it's used. i think a lot of folks don't realize how much technology has helped even non-technology industries. we don't have (many) famines anymore! that's wild!

The tools we have now are essentially the opposite of that, though. They're produced as the most cynically capitalistic of ventures, and they cost *a lot* to use. They're directly anti-free information.

we're not THAT old steve holy crap neither like our generation nor that saying (but fjlkasdfjklasdfaskdl; yeaaaaaaa fjlksadfjkldas;fakl it has been lost to time unfort and it makes me sad like wanna cry sometimes.)

is anyone fighting for AI to really and truly benefit humanity right now? everything I see just furthers the value capture by capital. apologies if this comes off as a troll, I'm genuinely curious what this actually looks like in practice

no i think this is the right question! i think that if you're talking about the big companies, they mostly say it's about humanity but it's actually about capital what i'm talking about is the *usage* directly. like, for example, using llms to enhance our ability to write software that helps people

creating models, like creating factories, takes a lot of capital. so it's not shocking that their creation is the concern of capital. it's the *output* that's of interest here, to me. and i think that this is happening, in the small, all over.

i think part of this is the (intentional, capitalists write the history books) characterization of luddites and related movements as being anti-technology rather than pro-labor. i think a lot of people agree with the luddites' aims and methods and confuse the symptom for the cause

i think this is true but also the luddites came along in a different time and in different circumstances, and so while they may have been pro labor, i think that the way they went about doing things was mis-directed