I don't accept the premise that there is a harmful class bias in opposing gen AI. This argument presumes both that the writing of working class and marginalized people is less valuable unless it matches the style of wealthy people, and that they cannot...
-
mnl mnl mnl mnl mnlreplied to mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl last edited by
@jenniferplusplus what makes you think I was willfully (!) misreading you.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl last edited by
@mnl if people are seeking these things out and playing with on their own, that's different. I still think it's wasteful, but it's wasteful on the order of car enthusiasts going to track days. Publishers inserting AI in between workers and their work is like building cities around cars or locking people out of repairing their own devices. It's extractive and controlling, and bad for society
-
mnl mnl mnl mnl mnlreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus what are you referring to when saying publishers insert AI between workers and their work? (genuinely curious, and if I come across as a sealion, I am happy to launder my question through an LLM :blobfoxcute: )
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to mnl mnl mnl mnl mnl last edited by
@mnl I don't even know how to respond to this. You can't do much as do a Google search without someone inserting ai into the process
-
mnl mnl mnl mnl mnlreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus i thought you were referring to some specific publishers or tools and was curious about it
-
@jenniferplusplus no, no, let the wealthy own the means of intellectual production. Negotiating with labor / society is icky
/S -
@jenniferplusplus controlling the means of communication is not enough! Paying the wokes to Invent Reality is too risky. We must automate the manufacturing of consent! Only bot likes! Algorithms shall limit imagination AND communication! Consensus will be manufactured by creating a sense of community which benefits the people who matter, ie those of us with a high "net-worth" or value
Worst people. Don't even fully understand what they're doing. Delusional automata. Hoarders & paperclip-maxers
-
@cykonot I was with you right up until the end. I say they know exactly what they're doing.
-
@jenniferplusplus they are creating a society-wide tontine. They understand they're hurting people, they understand they're greedy, but they don't fully grasp the systemic danger
Like, their bunkers can never keep them safe. A bigger fish will "steal" all their stuff. Their libertarian dΓ©tente is a tontine, and a random military bureaucrat will take it all if they get their way. Foolish narcissists.
Ignorance isn't an excuse, anyway. People love motivated reasoning / feeling justified.
-
@jenniferplusplus the purpose of a system is what it does. And they don't seem to understand the kind of system they're creating. Or, at least that's how things appear to me.
Maybe it's too many courtesans flattering them. Maybe it's purely their own twisted self-perception and limited worldviews. Whatever the case, their accelerationism comes from a deeply ignorant place and leads nowhere good.
They lack the TASTE to be properly self-interested. The understanding of the human condition. IMO.
-
@cykonot there's a lot of levels to view this from. At one level, they're industrializing knowledge work. That is their explicit goal, and they're pursuing it aggressively. At another level, there's the global ecological harm. They know they're doing harm. It's not their goal, but it's not stopping them either.
Regardless, they're acting with knowledge and purpose. None of this is accident or ignorance.
-
@jenniferplusplus this specific endeavor is certainly bad.
I'm prone to ignoring goals / desires and focusing on outcomes. Delusions and misaprehensions are not justifications, generally. But, the mental gymnastics one would need to justify this pursuit along whatever grand arch of history we happen to lie on... Simply ridiculous.
I was not trying to shift the focus away from the specific issue. Ones context tends to follow oneself, and I guess I've been on a somewhat fatalistic bent, of late.
-
@cykonot no, you're good. I'm not upset. I just think it's important to recognize that capital is acting with purpose. Capitalists know what they're doing. They know the cost. They know the harm and the risk. They're doing it anyway, on purpose.
Our response has to recognize that. If we assume they're ignorant, we'll get lost trying to educate them away from this path that they knowingly chose, and it will never work.
-
ig π³οΈβπreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus nobody worth taking seriously believes that marginalized people need AI to write. 'For ten and sixpence one can buy paper enough to write all the plays of Shakespeare...The cheapness of writing paper is, of course, the reason why women have succeeded as writers before they have succeeded in the other professions.'
non-academics throughout history have remade literature to their liking & changed the art for the better. to discount their capabilities is condescending & insulting
-
ig π³οΈβπreplied to ig π³οΈβπ last edited by
@jenniferplusplus the barrier to access is *publishing,* not the writing process. academic privilege and cronies with connections are not fixed by AI. the bland cowardice of corporate publishers is not fixed by AI. this is yet another example of corporations abusing the language of social justice to benefit themselves. god knows why anyone still falls for it.