Reading scholarship on #resistance to #AI — I just want younger people to know, this is different.
-
Reading scholarship on #resistance to #AI — I just want younger people to know, this is different. In my memory, theorists and practitioners didn't feel bound to organize a *resistance* to word processors or gps or email.
Now, maybe we all turned technophobe all of a sudden. But maybe, just maybe, this is not the technological future we should be embracing or even accepting.
-
Reading scholarship on #resistance to #AI — I just want younger people to know, this is different. In my memory, theorists and practitioners didn't feel bound to organize a *resistance* to word processors or gps or email.
Now, maybe we all turned technophobe all of a sudden. But maybe, just maybe, this is not the technological future we should be embracing or even accepting.
@sakhavi and i believe we'd see more scholarship on resistance to AI if anti-AI scholarship didn't seem to tend to get defunded the moment it turns out the conclusions are anti-AI
-
@sakhavi and i believe we'd see more scholarship on resistance to AI if anti-AI scholarship didn't seem to tend to get defunded the moment it turns out the conclusions are anti-AI
@mcc … thus further substantiating the need for resistance, yeah. This seems more and more like a fight chosen by the ones “in charge,” like when people say “Yes, this is a class war, and the ultra-rich started it!”
-
Reading scholarship on #resistance to #AI — I just want younger people to know, this is different. In my memory, theorists and practitioners didn't feel bound to organize a *resistance* to word processors or gps or email.
Now, maybe we all turned technophobe all of a sudden. But maybe, just maybe, this is not the technological future we should be embracing or even accepting.
Much of the opposition isn't even about the technology. This opposition mirrors that of the Luddites: the technology isn't really the problem, it's the ruling class using the technology as a weapon against the lower classes, and not caring how much damage they cause to people or the planet in the process.
This isn't a new occurrence - but last time, the resistance *lost*. Imo people should be thinking hard about how to make sure that doesn't hapoen again
-
Much of the opposition isn't even about the technology. This opposition mirrors that of the Luddites: the technology isn't really the problem, it's the ruling class using the technology as a weapon against the lower classes, and not caring how much damage they cause to people or the planet in the process.
This isn't a new occurrence - but last time, the resistance *lost*. Imo people should be thinking hard about how to make sure that doesn't hapoen again
The technology's kinda the problem. With the loom and similar devices, there was a clear and definite link between the productivity increases established and the technology used. The ruling class explained it away as the cost of progress -- which was of course bullshit, the only cost was to workers' pockets, as the capitalist fucks used it to entrench their power.
Here, we don't have that. We have a technology which is actively making its users' lives worse, reducing productivity, crippling companies' ability to operate in the long term, and still forced upon the workers by the executives who have drank the damned Flavor-Aid for one reason or another.
This time there's no reason not to throw wooden clogs into the gears, there's no excuse for their actions. I hope that lends an urgency and a certainty to the folks trying to overthrow the rent-seekers.
-
Reading scholarship on #resistance to #AI — I just want younger people to know, this is different. In my memory, theorists and practitioners didn't feel bound to organize a *resistance* to word processors or gps or email.
Now, maybe we all turned technophobe all of a sudden. But maybe, just maybe, this is not the technological future we should be embracing or even accepting.
@sakhavi I mean, we probably should have resisted Facebook in the day. Maybe we’re learning to be a little more discerning of the technology we pursue. Gradually.
-
The technology's kinda the problem. With the loom and similar devices, there was a clear and definite link between the productivity increases established and the technology used. The ruling class explained it away as the cost of progress -- which was of course bullshit, the only cost was to workers' pockets, as the capitalist fucks used it to entrench their power.
Here, we don't have that. We have a technology which is actively making its users' lives worse, reducing productivity, crippling companies' ability to operate in the long term, and still forced upon the workers by the executives who have drank the damned Flavor-Aid for one reason or another.
This time there's no reason not to throw wooden clogs into the gears, there's no excuse for their actions. I hope that lends an urgency and a certainty to the folks trying to overthrow the rent-seekers.
@theogrin
I've seen too many workers who drank the kool aid to fully agree with that sentiment.There are people, worker and executive alike, who believe that it allows a few people to do the work of many.
For a few specific subfields - not programming, mind - where grammatically consistent bullshit is actually the point, I've had my mind changed recently that they're kinda right.
I'm not convinced it won't become more useful over time, either.
I think any argument that uses its uselessness as a predicate is at least tactically wrong; it's not necessary when the ethical arguments are so, so much more important, and entirely sufficient on their own
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
