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.
I’ve read enough Marx to know the base dictates the shape of the superstructure which includes technology like LLMs.
As if this technology isn’t a product and in service of capitalist relations. Go read Chomsky to see how CNC machines were designed in a way to strengthen capitalist control. gAI is being developed with the same business logic: eliminate jobs at the cost of quality and robustness.
If they are allowed to train on OSS code then the same is true of proprietary code, they use the same legal mechanisms. Get your code off GitHub…
Because AI does nonsensical things that would require extra effort for a human to do, in this case the lady has a soccer purse and a soccer ball
And he encouraged others to do so. It is almost like this is a bigger issue for women or girls for some reason. I’m probably sexist for noticing.
It’s not even profitable though… At this point it seems it is just about control, like they would rather have a money pit then let independent workers, ie creatives, have any profit.
“We want him to act like a hegemon and purge people based on ideology instead of what they have done.”
Go read “Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers”, written by a member of the CCP to better understand what kind of leader Mamdani is vs the kind you are asking for and the consequences there of.
I read it and still share the same response. You expect him to say he will not hire someone to coordinate trash pickup based on their foreign policies? Lol okay.
Wouldn’t that have made the USSR capitalist as well? I think a key distinction is how authority within a party is established. If authority is derived from ownership then that is clearly capitalist. If authority is derived from the party itself, then that is something else.
That’s all hard to do when billionaires are the ones structuring society. The point is we don’t get to choose corrective societal actions unless it is an exercise of individual privilege. I would have loved to take the train to visit relatives, but it literally is not an option.
Ehh, the capitalist class doesn’t call the shots in China though, the party does. And their private corporations don’t simply have shareholders, it has party representation embedded in the control structure making “ownership” moot because ultimately the party can veto or seize production at moments notice.
That being said, when Xi starts claiming socialism is inevitable, he does so to delay it’s implementation.
She changed her last name to not be associated to the guy. I can at least respect she doesn’t want to be defined by her opposition to her father.
I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).
If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?
Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.
Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.
Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.
Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.
They said send them, never said in what condition.