Post

Labor movement? lol, my good sir: I raise and sell horses. I think I'll be just fine, thanks.

That is about it. The PMC thinks they’re entrepreneurs with their own (intellectual) capital—so what they need is not a union, but merely laws to prevent others from stealing their ideas.

PMC?

I mean, that's not too far off the actuality. The main reaction of weavers was that the mills were making cheap slop knockoffs and enriching themselves off of weavers' hard-developed styles. Seeking to destroy rather than sieze the means of production was wrong, folly, and failed.

I know! But I’m avoiding the L word since it will trigger 500 replies that “actually the Luddites weren’t opposed to technology as such.”

This has been confusing me since I joined Bluesky. The rational behavior would at the very least be to have some sort of game plan in case beliefs a and c prove to be false, and assign a minimum of credence to what domain experts are predicting.

You got an AI that does anything useful? Like manufacturing, domestic labor? Stocking shelves? Anything that replaces important human labor so people have more freedom to make art and such? Cause all I see people pushing right now are slop excreters and surveillance.

The problem is that there is no AI. There are LLMs, which only do things that no one wants done; Spying, shitty art, e-mails that didn't need to be sent in the first place.

Yep. If this was an ordinary case of automation—not labeled “AI”—people would accept that it’s happening and move on to discuss effects, policy responses, etc. The “AI” label makes people feel the value of their sentience is undermined, which triggers denial, which prevents a pragmatic response.

This post has made me question when was America founded with Google and Bing both giving two completely different answers. The USA gov site says July 4, 1776 but bing says "may 12, 1784". I wish I was joking tbh

both answers defensible, I think

@tedunderwood.com This is exactly it. Since the 1880s productivity has increased at least 8 fold. So if a person back then worked 80 hours a week for a living income, he should be able to work only 10 hours a week now. But it didn't happen that way, because the benefits of industrialization […]

And, ideally, control of the means of production.

Normal labor movements won't work. You can't just end capitalism. It seems the only solution with a chance of working is a corp owned by people with rules in place to avoid control capture. But it can't be built fast enough. It's impossible. And we can see it'll likely fail just looking at our

democracy. I don't see a way out. The best I've come up with is let corps destroy themselves by making themselves obsolete because people can no longer afford their services. Bring everything local. Use ai to make every person or small group of people a business. But that leads to the problems