AIs gunning for our precious freelancers

[Raholeun]

I remember playing Football Manager ages ago, perhaps it was even still called Championship Manager. Its developers were such diligent translators that, in the Dutch version, they parsed Francesco Totti as "Frankrijksco Totti". That was early '00s machine translation for you.

[malloc]

Not really related to AI, but it still infuriates me how rotting bones keeps insisting that any criticism of technology is neo-Heideggerian crypto-fascism. He is simply wrong on factual grounds, of course, as anyone who actually reads critiques of the tech industry can see. Yet he's also viciously smearing numerous dedicated leftists as reactionaries and bigots. Meanwhile the entire tech industry has thrown its influence and extravagant wealth behind the far right. People like Elon Musk and Mencius Moldbug are fighting tooth and nail to destroy democracy and inaugurate reactionary despotism.

[Travis B.]

Not really related to AI, but it still infuriates me how rotting bones keeps insisting that any criticism of technology is neo-Heideggerian crypto-fascism. He is simply wrong on factual grounds, of course, as anyone who actually reads critiques of the tech industry can see. Yet he's also viciously smearing numerous dedicated leftists as reactionaries and bigots. Meanwhile the entire tech industry has thrown its influence and extravagant wealth behind the far right. People like Elon Musk and Mencius Moldbug are fighting tooth and nail to destroy democracy and inaugurate reactionary despotism.

Just because the techbros at the top (you know whom I am referring to) have gone all MAGA does not mean that technology itself is necessarily reactionary. And while technology is used against workers in our capitalist world today does not mean the same technology could not be used for workers in a socialist society. Take AI for instance -- capitalists are trying to use it to replace workers and concentrate wealth in their own hands, but in a socialist society the same AI could be used to save the workers work and increase their leisure time.

[Travis B.]

Or in short, capitalism, not technology, is the problem.

[alice]

Or in short, capitalism, not technology, is the problem.

Strictly speaking, according to Douglas Adams, people are the problem. Even extreme free-market libertarianism would work if there weren't any people to mess it up.

[keenir]

. He is simply wrong on factual grounds, of course, as anyone who actually reads critiques of the tech industry can see.

critiques such as...?

Yet he's also viciously smearing numerous dedicated leftists as reactionaries and bigots.

Dedicated leftists can't be reactionaries or bigots?

[Travis B.]

The thing here is that malloc can't separate out capitalism from technology. The problem with the "tech industry" that malloc complains about is late-stage capitalism, not the technology itself. But malloc doesn't see this.

[Travis B.]

Yet he's also viciously smearing numerous dedicated leftists as reactionaries and bigots.

Dedicated leftists can't be reactionaries or bigots?

Obviously, malloc sees things as "leftist means good" and thus overlooks people such as Stalinists, who were leftist but certainly weren't good.

[keenir]

Yet he's also viciously smearing numerous dedicated leftists as reactionaries and bigots.

Dedicated leftists can't be reactionaries or bigots?

Obviously, malloc sees things as "leftist means good" and thus overlooks people such as Stalinists, who were leftist but certainly weren't good.

the only good Stalinist was Superman.

[malloc]

The thing here is that malloc can't separate out capitalism from technology. The problem with the "tech industry" that malloc complains about is late-stage capitalism, not the technology itself. But malloc doesn't see this.

Not sure I agree here. Some forms of technology are clearly harmful in themselves regardless of broader social context. Fossil fuels contribute to air pollution and global warming simply by their very nature and that would hardly change under a different economic system. Certainly an alternative economic system like socialism could avoid the problem of automation leaving everyone to starve. However many other criticisms of AI would remain, from its inherent opacity to the ecological impact of its power consumption to the negative effects of outsourcing more and more of our cognitive and creative tasks to machines.

Dedicated leftists can't be reactionaries or bigots?

Sure they can, but Rotting Bones never pointed to any examples of left wing technology critics slipping into bigotry. He merely implied fascist sympathies because fascist philosopher Martin Heidegger also criticized technology.

[bradrn]

Sure they can, but Rotting Bones never pointed to any examples of left wing technology critics slipping into bigotry. He merely implied fascist sympathies because fascist philosopher Martin Heidegger also criticized technology.

In general I pay very little attention to what rotting bones says. Why fret over him needlessly?

[Travis B.]

The thing here is that malloc can't separate out capitalism from technology. The problem with the "tech industry" that malloc complains about is late-stage capitalism, not the technology itself. But malloc doesn't see this.

Not sure I agree here. Some forms of technology are clearly harmful in themselves regardless of broader social context. Fossil fuels contribute to air pollution and global warming simply by their very nature and that would hardly change under a different economic system. Certainly an alternative economic system like socialism could avoid the problem of automation leaving everyone to starve. However many other criticisms of AI would remain, from its inherent opacity to the ecological impact of its power consumption to the negative effects of outsourcing more and more of our cognitive and creative tasks to machines.

I give you that some sorts of technology do have inherent harms, particularly fossil fuels, but that is different from complaining about "technology" in a broad sense. In the case of AI using large amounts of power, for instance, the solution is likely not less technology but more technology, by making more efficient AI's that use less power to do the same or more (as is allegedly the case already with DeepSeek).

[malloc]

I give you that some sorts of technology do have inherent harms, particularly fossil fuels, but that is different from complaining about "technology" in a broad sense. In the case of AI using large amounts of power, for instance, the solution is likely not less technology but more technology, by making more efficient AI's that use less power to do the same or more (as is allegedly the case already with DeepSeek).

Maybe so. Even putting aside all the usual critiques of artificial intelligence, I have never really trusted it on conceptual grounds. Unlike other forms of technology, it is fundamentally a black box with considerable autonomy and unpredictability. This greatly limits our ability to control it and gives us quite a different relationship with it than technologies that serve as transparent extensions of our will. Compare that with a hammer which simply pounds whatever you want pounded or even other forms of software which follow transparent and predictable algorithms. Even the people pushing AI acknowledge this problem and worry about AI slipping out of our control, hence the concerns over AI alignment and safety.

[keenir]

black box

wow...I posted a link to a scishow video about AI and its black box of unknowns and knowns, and suddenly you're abruptly worried about the black boxes, instead of simply praising the AI airplanes.

The thing here is that malloc can't separate out capitalism from technology. The problem with the "tech industry" that malloc complains about is late-stage capitalism, not the technology itself. But malloc doesn't see this.

Not sure I agree here. Some forms of technology are clearly harmful in themselves regardless of broader social context. Fossil fuels contribute to air pollution and global warming simply by their very nature and that would hardly change under a different economic system.

in your daily life, do you use anything made from rubber, coal, or other fossil fuels?

does your local hospital use anything from them?

However many other criticisms of AI would remain, from its inherent opacity to the ecological impact of its power consumption to the negative effects of outsourcing more and more of our cognitive and creative tasks to machines.

given that you just lost that argument against Zompist, are you really reviving it this soon after?

Dedicated leftists can't be reactionaries or bigots?

Sure they can, but Rotting Bones never pointed to any examples of left wing technology critics slipping into bigotry. He merely implied fascist sympathies because fascist philosopher Martin Heidegger also criticized technology.

and you're accusing others (Rotting Bones among others) of not reading factual documents and of missing important things...and you cite none of them, leaving us to flounder without those facts you deem all-important.

[Ares Land]

The thing here is that malloc can't separate out capitalism from technology. The problem with the "tech industry" that malloc complains about is late-stage capitalism, not the technology itself. But malloc doesn't see this.

Not sure I agree here. Some forms of technology are clearly harmful in themselves regardless of broader social context. Fossil fuels contribute to air pollution and global warming simply by their very nature and that would hardly change under a different economic system. Certainly an alternative economic system like socialism could avoid the problem of automation leaving everyone to starve. However many other criticisms of AI would remain, from its inherent opacity to the ecological impact of its power consumption to the negative effects of outsourcing more and more of our cognitive and creative tasks to machines.

There's a lot that is true in what you say. But AI is a huge fields; not all of it is generative AI gadgetry. A lot of the field is useful. Some projects I've been involved with included OCR, image and pattern recognition and manuscript and assorted historical documents. That was unquestionably useful. (Also not glamorous, so the level of funding was close to zero, alas -- also I was on the technical infrastructure side, not the actual AI side, so I can't really claim to have worked on AI)
There's some talk of AI being better at interpreting medical imagery. I take such claims with a grain of salt, but if it's true, I'm in favor of fewer people dying of cancer at the costs of radiologists being less wealthy.

Sure they can, but Rotting Bones never pointed to any examples of left wing technology critics slipping into bigotry. He merely implied fascist sympathies because fascist philosopher Martin Heidegger also criticized technology.

At least quote rotting bones or something; he's regularly around.
Right-wing criticism of technology often borders on fascism, and there are regular border incursions. One example that comes to mind is the European New Right.
On the left, I've heard similar claims but they are much exaggerated. At most left-wing criticism of technology can be annoying -- electric cars get a lot of flak for bad reasons, for instance (leaving Tesla aside for obvious reasons.)

[Raphael]

Technology is part of the larger modernity package. Take away the larger modernity package, and you get agricultural societies with lords and peasants. I don't see what's supposed to be left-wing about that.

[Ares Land]

Technology is part of the larger modernity package. Take away the larger modernity package, and you get agricultural societies with lords and peasants. I don't see what's supposed to be left-wing about that.

I never met anyone who seriously suggests getting rid of all modern technology
Also I don't think anyone suggests technology is a package -- we can and do avoid dangerous technology. Even Elon Musk is sensible enough not to build Project Orion rockets.

It's really a question of how high your threshold is, and your general amount of distrust. These can be really high in some left-wing circles. Also, how separable is technology from capitalism? Of course both are related to some extent, but opinions may vary on how much one is a proxy for the other.

Hypothetically, there's an interesting conworlding question -- if we decided to get rid of all post-1800 technology, are we sure we would get lords and peasants again? (To be clear: I don't want that! People would die!)

[Raphael]

Also, how separable is technology from capitalism? Of course both are related to some extent, but opinions may vary on how much one is a proxy for the other.

I'd say technology is first and foremost about societies that aren't like Ancien Régime Europe any more, no matter whether they are capitalist or socialist or even communist. In the RCK, zompist has a neat short discussion of things that capitalism and communism actually have in common, if you compare them to pre-industrial societies.

Hypothetically, there's an interesting conworlding question -- if we decided to get rid of all post-1800 technology, are we sure we would get lords and peasants again? (To be clear: I don't want that! People would die!)

I don't see how to avoid it. The one sort of counter-example I can think of is the northern part of the USA between independence and industrialization, if you pretend the indigenous people don't count. As it happens, that particular society seems to be what the Unabomber idealized. But I'm not at all sure that, without industrialization, it could have avoided turning into a standard lords-and-peasants structure for long.

What annoys me about left-wingers idealizing pre-industrial society is that the predecessors of what later became the modern left were originally forged in the struggle against the Ancien Régime, but now some of their ideological descendants act as if they want the bad old days back.

[Ares Land]

What annoys me about left-wingers idealizing pre-industrial society is that the predecessors of what later became the modern left were originally forged in the struggle against the Ancien Régime, but now some of their ideological descendants act as if they want the bad old days back.

But precisely, there are no left-wingers who do that; at least none I had encountered.
What you get is cases like David Graeber who can speak favorably of Iroquois society, or the Ummayad Caliphate, even I think of medieval peasants -- but they're historical examples aimed at showing non-capitalistic ways to run the economy. There's no sense of nostalgia or longing for any of these.

There are radical environmentalists who can be rather... spartan in their view of what technologies to allow, but getting rid of all modern technology is not what they have in mind. They may have ideas about flush toilets you and I wouldn't necessarily agree with, but they don't show similar opposition to MRI machines. Or less dramatically, they're certainly opposed to cars, or even to high speed trains for some of these, but not to trains in generals, or bicycles.

Restricted technology isn't quite the same as getting back to pre-industrial times. We can of course have objections to the restrictions suggested (I certainly do) -- though I think the difference is of degree rather than of nature. I think we all agree there are some pieces of technologies we can do without.

[malloc]

What annoys me about left-wingers idealizing pre-industrial society is that the predecessors of what later became the modern left were originally forged in the struggle against the Ancien Régime, but now some of their ideological descendants act as if they want the bad old days back.

Quite. Despite my tone in this thread, I generally support modernity and technology and often feel at odds with other leftists on these issues. All too often, I see leftists denouncing the Enlightenment as a wrong turn or waxing nostalgic for Medieval peasant life. While they often raise legitimate points like the racism of Immanuel Kant or the hardships of capitalist work culture, it feels like they gloss over the sheer drudgery of subsistence farming or the intellectual limitations of pre-scientific thought.

There's some talk of AI being better at interpreting medical imagery. I take such claims with a grain of salt, but if it's true, I'm in favor of fewer people dying of cancer at the costs of radiologists being less wealthy.

Sure but eventually everyone becomes unemployable and indeed superfluous to the running of civilization. Nobody advocating AI has a good answer to this problem apart from pinky swearing to keep us around as pets once all jobs have been eliminated. Given the trajectory of economic policy over the past few decades with endless waves of austerity, I have no confidence that they will honor any such promise. Furthermore, without the opportunity to strike or even the ability to understand the black box machines now running society, the people would have little leverage over the course of society. Despite their cosseted existence, pets fundamentally have no control over their lives.