Wrong.
The problem are humans, the same things that happen under capitalism can (and would) happen under any other system because humans are the ones who make these things happen or allow them to happen.
Problems would exist in any system, but not the same problems. Each system has its set of problems and challenges. Just look at history, problems change. Of course you can find analogies between problems, but their nature changes with our systems.
Hunger, child mortality, pollution, having no free time, war, censorship, mass surveilence,… these are not constant through history. They happen more or less depending on the social systems in place, which vary constantly.
While you aren’t wrong about human nature. I’d say you’re wrong about systems. How would the same thing happen under an anarchist system? Or under an actual communist (not Marxist-Leninist) system? Which account for human nature and focus to use it against itself.
I’ll answer. Because some people see these systems as “good” regardless of political affiliation and want them furthered and see any cost as worth it. If an anarchist / communist sees these systems in a positive light, then they will absolutely try and use them at scale. These people absolutely exist and you could find many examples of them on Lemmy. Try DB0.
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule. Not massive national or unanswerable state scales.
And yes, I’m an anarchist. I know DB0 and their instance and generally agree with their stance - because it would allow any one of us to effectively advocate against it if we desired to.
There would be no tech broligarchy forcing things on anyone. They’d likely all be hanged long ago. And no one would miss them as they provide nothing of real value anyway.
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule.
Every community running their own AI would be even more wasteful than corporate centralization. It doesn’t matter what the system is if people want it.
The point is, most wouldn’t. It’s of little real use currently, especially the LLM bullshit. The communities would have infinitely better things to pit resources to.
People currently want it despite it being stupid which is why corporations are in a frenzy to be the monopoly that provides it. People want all sorts of stupid things. A different system wouldn’t change that.
Define people. Because obviously people don’t here. The average person I talk to IRL on a daily basis don’t know what it is, have never used it, and likely never will. And a system where the people currently pushing this wouldn’t exist would certainly change things.
I don’t use Twitter and don’t know anyone that does but that doesn’t mean it isn’t popular.
Your argument basically amounts to “nu uh”.
ChatGPT has been the biggest Internet thing since Google. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t even be talking about it here. I shouldn’t have to quote statistics for something well known.
DB0 has a rather famous record of banning users who do not agree with AI. See !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or others for many threads complaining about it.
You have no way of knowing what the scale would be as it’s all a thought experiment, however, so let’s play at that. if you see AI as a nearly universal good and want to encourage people to use it, why not incorporate it into things? Why not foist it into the state OS or whatever?
Buuuuut… keep in mind that in previous Communist regimes (even if you disagree that they were “real” Communists), what the state says will apply. If the state is actively pro-AI, then by default, you are using it. Are you too good to use what your brothers and sisters have said is good and will definitely 100% save labour? Are you wasteful, Comrade? Why do you hate your country?
Yes, I have seen posts on it. Sufficed to say, despite being an anarchist. I don’t have an account there for reasons. And don’t agree with everything they do.
The situation with those bans I might consider heavy handed and perhaps overreaching. But by the same token it’s a bit of a reflection of some of those that are banned. Overzealous and lacking nuance etc.
The funny thing is. They pretty much dislike the tech bros as much as anyone here does. You generally won’t ever find them defending their actions. They want AI etc that they can run from their home. Not snarfing up massive public resources, massively contributing to climate change, or stealing anyone’s livelihood. Hell many of them want to run off the grid from wind and solar. But, as always happens with the left. We can agree with eachother 90%, but will never tolerate or understand because of the 10%.
PS
We do know the scale. Your use of “the state” with reference to anarchism. Implies you’re unfamiliar with it. Anarchism and communism are against “the state” for the reasons you’re also warry of it. It’s too powerful and unanswerable.
It will happen regardless because we are not machines, we don’t follow theory, laws, instructions or whatever a system tells us to perfectly and without little changes here and there.
I think you are underestimating how adaptable humans are. We absolutely conform to the systems that govern us, and they are NOT equally likely to produce bad outcomes.
Every system eventually ends with someone corrupted with power and greed wanting more. Putin and his oligrachs, Trump and his oligarchs… Xi isn’t great, but at least I haven’t heard news about the Uyghurs situation for a couple of years now. Hope things are better there nowadays and people aren’t going missing anymore just for speaking out against their government.
Time doesn’t end with corrupt power, those are just things that happen. Bad shit always happens, it’s the Why, How Often and How We Fix It that are more indicative of success. Every machine breaks down eventually.
Wrong.
The problem are humans, the same things that happen under capitalism can (and would) happen under any other system because humans are the ones who make these things happen or allow them to happen.
Problems would exist in any system, but not the same problems. Each system has its set of problems and challenges. Just look at history, problems change. Of course you can find analogies between problems, but their nature changes with our systems. Hunger, child mortality, pollution, having no free time, war, censorship, mass surveilence,… these are not constant through history. They happen more or less depending on the social systems in place, which vary constantly.
While you aren’t wrong about human nature. I’d say you’re wrong about systems. How would the same thing happen under an anarchist system? Or under an actual communist (not Marxist-Leninist) system? Which account for human nature and focus to use it against itself.
I’ll answer. Because some people see these systems as “good” regardless of political affiliation and want them furthered and see any cost as worth it. If an anarchist / communist sees these systems in a positive light, then they will absolutely try and use them at scale. These people absolutely exist and you could find many examples of them on Lemmy. Try DB0.
And the point of anarchist or actual communist systems is that such scale would be miniscule. Not massive national or unanswerable state scales.
And yes, I’m an anarchist. I know DB0 and their instance and generally agree with their stance - because it would allow any one of us to effectively advocate against it if we desired to.
There would be no tech broligarchy forcing things on anyone. They’d likely all be hanged long ago. And no one would miss them as they provide nothing of real value anyway.
Every community running their own AI would be even more wasteful than corporate centralization. It doesn’t matter what the system is if people want it.
The point is, most wouldn’t. It’s of little real use currently, especially the LLM bullshit. The communities would have infinitely better things to pit resources to.
People currently want it despite it being stupid which is why corporations are in a frenzy to be the monopoly that provides it. People want all sorts of stupid things. A different system wouldn’t change that.
Define people. Because obviously people don’t here. The average person I talk to IRL on a daily basis don’t know what it is, have never used it, and likely never will. And a system where the people currently pushing this wouldn’t exist would certainly change things.
Your argument basically amounts to “nu uh”.
ChatGPT.com is visited approximately 5.24 billion times each month. That makes it bigger than Twitter, Instagram, and even Wikipedia.
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/chatgpt-users
I don’t use Twitter and don’t know anyone that does but that doesn’t mean it isn’t popular.
ChatGPT has been the biggest Internet thing since Google. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t even be talking about it here. I shouldn’t have to quote statistics for something well known.
DB0 has a rather famous record of banning users who do not agree with AI. See !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com or others for many threads complaining about it.
You have no way of knowing what the scale would be as it’s all a thought experiment, however, so let’s play at that. if you see AI as a nearly universal good and want to encourage people to use it, why not incorporate it into things? Why not foist it into the state OS or whatever?
Buuuuut… keep in mind that in previous Communist regimes (even if you disagree that they were “real” Communists), what the state says will apply. If the state is actively pro-AI, then by default, you are using it. Are you too good to use what your brothers and sisters have said is good and will definitely 100% save labour? Are you wasteful, Comrade? Why do you hate your country?
Yes, I have seen posts on it. Sufficed to say, despite being an anarchist. I don’t have an account there for reasons. And don’t agree with everything they do.
The situation with those bans I might consider heavy handed and perhaps overreaching. But by the same token it’s a bit of a reflection of some of those that are banned. Overzealous and lacking nuance etc.
The funny thing is. They pretty much dislike the tech bros as much as anyone here does. You generally won’t ever find them defending their actions. They want AI etc that they can run from their home. Not snarfing up massive public resources, massively contributing to climate change, or stealing anyone’s livelihood. Hell many of them want to run off the grid from wind and solar. But, as always happens with the left. We can agree with eachother 90%, but will never tolerate or understand because of the 10%.
PS
We do know the scale. Your use of “the state” with reference to anarchism. Implies you’re unfamiliar with it. Anarchism and communism are against “the state” for the reasons you’re also warry of it. It’s too powerful and unanswerable.
It will happen regardless because we are not machines, we don’t follow theory, laws, instructions or whatever a system tells us to perfectly and without little changes here and there.
I think you are underestimating how adaptable humans are. We absolutely conform to the systems that govern us, and they are NOT equally likely to produce bad outcomes.
Every system eventually ends with someone corrupted with power and greed wanting more. Putin and his oligrachs, Trump and his oligarchs… Xi isn’t great, but at least I haven’t heard news about the Uyghurs situation for a couple of years now. Hope things are better there nowadays and people aren’t going missing anymore just for speaking out against their government.
Time doesn’t end with corrupt power, those are just things that happen. Bad shit always happens, it’s the Why, How Often and How We Fix It that are more indicative of success. Every machine breaks down eventually.
I mean you’d have to be pretty smart to make the perfect system. Things failing isn’t proof that things can’t be better.
I see, so you don’t understand. Or simply refuse to engage with what was asked.
Can, would… and did. The list of environmental disasters in the Soviet is long and intense.