41–50 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the beautiful thing, if it had been communist and aggressive, it wouldn't have mattered if the fascists wanted it or not.
>Why is everyone suddenly tearing down all our shared institutions? All we wanted to do was force a communist revolution on them!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why is everyone suddenly tearing down all our shared institutions? All we wanted to do was force a communist revolution on them!
It is the other way around. The tear-down of the shared institutions proves that a communist revolution would've been the right move in hindsight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why is everyone suddenly tearing down all our shared institutions? All we wanted to do was force a communist revolution on them!
It is the other way around. The tear-down of the shared institutions proves that a communist revolution would've been the right move in hindsight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the other way around. The tear-down of the shared institutions proves that a communist revolution would've been the right move in hindsight.
At least you admit you want a communist revolution rather than using euphemisms like "aligning governmental policy with science and reason" or "programs informed by a root-cause analysis".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least you admit you want a communist revolution rather than using euphemisms like "aligning governmental policy with science and reason" or "programs informed by a root-cause analysis".
As Rosa Luxemburg said, it's socialism or barbarism . It is unfortunate we seem to be going down the path of the latter. To me, it proves the non-viability of electoralism.
Different people just aren't going to agree on social norms and some groups are going to abuse certain things more than other groups. In the past between freedom of association and low levels of migration people could kind of work that out but when you force people to use public services for everything that's completely impossible.
You get one or the other at most. Both at the same time is an immediate non-starter for pretty much everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is the other way around. The tear-down of the shared institutions proves that a communist revolution would've been the right move in hindsight.
At least you admit you want a communist revolution rather than using euphemisms like "aligning governmental policy with science and reason" or "programs informed by a root-cause analysis".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least you admit you want a communist revolution rather than using euphemisms like "aligning governmental policy with science and reason" or "programs informed by a root-cause analysis".
By the way, I share the worry you express in your profile. Imo, eco-socialism is the only way out, there's no way capital interests will give up on burning our planet in their attempt to finally become fully independent of labor. Do you have any better ideas?
But I tend to think that most communists are neutral or positive in their attitude toward AI research. For example, according to a credible China expert, Xi Jinping has directed China to pursue AI research very aggressively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the way, I share the worry you express in your profile. Imo, eco-socialism is the only way out, there's no way capital interests will give up on burning our planet in their attempt to finally become fully independent of labor. Do you have any better ideas?
Although I don't think communism is a good idea, we find ourselves facing a danger and a menace much more potent than communism IMHO, so I would warmly welcome a communist takeover of my country (the US) if it would reliably stop AI research in my country and keep it stopped. (I'm OK with people's continuing to use models that have already seen widespread usage: it's the training of large new models I want to stop --…
Once that monumental task is done (and this is where we might disagree, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts - my position there is not very firm!) I feel like looking at AI again - while keeping environmental constraints in mind, might be worth a try. The end goal would be utopian star trek post-resource-constraint society, a classless, socialist society in the humanistic sense - where everyone's needs are met and conflicts around resource allocation are a thing of the past.
Re your last edit - ask three socialists and you will get five conflicting takes, I definitely disagree with Xi on most things, though I do think he's doing a good job in things like building the Chinese high speed rail network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I don't think communism is a good idea, we find ourselves facing a danger and a menace much more potent than communism IMHO, so I would warmly welcome a communist takeover of my country (the US) if it would reliably stop AI research in my country and keep it stopped. (I'm OK with people's continuing to use models that have already seen widespread usage: it's the training of large new models I want to stop --…
In my ideal world, the main priority post-revolution would be to freeze development and prioritize saving our climate so we keep having a livable planet - green energy, public transport, etc etc. Once that monumental task is done (and this is where we might disagree, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts - my position there is not very firm!) I feel like looking at AI again - while keeping environmental constraint…
I don't think most readers here realize just how little control the AI labs have over their creations and how reliant they are on trial and error for implementing what control they do have. Of course, as soon as it becomes critical to keep an AI under control (namely, when its capabilities start to exceed human capabilities) is exactly when a lab will stop being able to rely on trial and error: specifically, the next time the lab makes an unsuccessful try, the AI will tend to arrange things so that the lab doesn't get any more tries.