Technology such as LLMs is just automation and that’s what the base is, how it is applied within a society is what’s dictated by the uperstructure. Open source LLMs such as DeepSeek are a productive force, and a rare instance where a advanced means of production is directly accessible for proletarian appropriation. It’s a classic base level conflict over the relations of production.
That’s an incredibly reactionary take on technology. Look at how open source is qualitatively different from their proprietary counterparts for a clear example of how the base doesn’t just dictate how a tool is used, but how tools are made and how the constraints built into the tool effect how they are used.
You might want to learn what words like reactionary actually mean before using them. We are discussing an open source tool, which by its nature lacks the built-in constraints you are describing. Your argument is a piece of sophistry designed to create the illusion of expertise on a subject you clearly do not understand. You are not engaging with the reality of the technology, but with a simplified caricature of it.
I’ve read enough Marx to know the base dictates the shape of the superstructure which includes technology like LLMs.
Technology such as LLMs is just automation and that’s what the base is, how it is applied within a society is what’s dictated by the uperstructure. Open source LLMs such as DeepSeek are a productive force, and a rare instance where a advanced means of production is directly accessible for proletarian appropriation. It’s a classic base level conflict over the relations of production.
That’s an incredibly reactionary take on technology. Look at how open source is qualitatively different from their proprietary counterparts for a clear example of how the base doesn’t just dictate how a tool is used, but how tools are made and how the constraints built into the tool effect how they are used.
You might want to learn what words like reactionary actually mean before using them. We are discussing an open source tool, which by its nature lacks the built-in constraints you are describing. Your argument is a piece of sophistry designed to create the illusion of expertise on a subject you clearly do not understand. You are not engaging with the reality of the technology, but with a simplified caricature of it.