Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We remain alive also in a dead internet

slavoj.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#71

Post by thrance »

hunterpayne wrote: post #61
th0ma5 wrote: post #13

I'm trying to figure out if someone is arguing that this proves the Nazis were socialists that this is published on Substack?

A nit, the word socialists is actually in the acronym (ie in the name). Fascism actually is a descendant of socialist ideology and Mussolini was a Socialist before inventing Fascism. Concepts of left and right only have meaning in one political unit at one point in time. The axis we use to judge right and left changes from time to time and is different in different places. Also, some fascist policies are similar to p…

In what qualities was Mussolini a socialist? Anti-capitalism never passionated him much. Indeed, he had a lot of support from the capitalist class, which he gladly took. Similarly, one of the first things the nazis did upon gaining power, was to arrest all communist and socialists, and make unions illegal within Germany.

Your mixing up of the two concepts is wrong and unhelpful. Certainly, the Soviet State was fascist in many aspects. But many fascist states emerge from capitalist economies, with help from the capitalist class.

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#72

Post by krapp »

hunterpayne wrote: post #61
th0ma5 wrote: post #13

I'm trying to figure out if someone is arguing that this proves the Nazis were socialists that this is published on Substack?

A nit, the word socialists is actually in the acronym (ie in the name). Fascism actually is a descendant of socialist ideology and Mussolini was a Socialist before inventing Fascism. Concepts of left and right only have meaning in one political unit at one point in time. The axis we use to judge right and left changes from time to time and is different in different places. Also, some fascist policies are similar to p…

>A nit, the word socialists is actually in the acronym (ie in the name).

Context, as always, matters. The Nazis were not socialist, they were infamously and violently anti-socialist. The reason "socialist" was in the name was that Hitler wanted to reframe the concept of socialism around nationalist and racist tenets.

Hitler himself explained his rationale in a magazine interview[0,1]:

    “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not
    Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from
    the Socialists.
    
    Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation
    of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is
    national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the 
    basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.”
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18twsvk/why_...

[1] https://archive.is/usjmJ#selection-2535.0-2539.363

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#73

Post by vonunov »

tekla wrote: post #59
kjkjadksj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's barely six pages of text. It doesn't need headings. When is the last time you read a book?

I've read lots of Zizek as a high schooler. This doesn't even come close to how dense some of his writing can be, I'm sitting here drunk on a few beers and it was a simple read. I think lots of people are actually illiterate.

https://www.adorableandharmless.com/p/college-english-majors...

(People [sorry, no citation] are saying this study is bad and invalid, but I think maybe English majors should be able to manage a bit better than that, even if it is Bleak House, and even if they were blindsided with it, and especially if they plan to become English teachers. So I still get at least some qualitative value out of it myself.)

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#74

Post by bluefirebrand »

squigz wrote: post #70
bluefirebrand wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if I'm just a machine or not I'm human, human rights should apply to humans, not synthetics and the creation of synthetic life should be punishable by death. I'm not exaggerating, either. I believe that building AI systems that replace all humans should be considered a crime against humanity. It is almost certainly a precursor to such crimes. It's bad enough trying to fight for a place in society as…

> replace all humans Depends what you mean by "replace" 'Economically'? Sure, this is problematic, but technology displacing workers is not a new issue, but unfortunately is more of a social and cultural issue. The only difference with AI is the (potential) scale of displacement. I'm fairly confident society would re-organize its expectations real quick though if a vast majority of functions were actually replaced. I…

> I'd ask for some rational as to why sentient AI would opt to kill us

I never made that claim

Humans have a long track record of killing humans.

Ask yourself, will the humans who control a legion of AI murderbots keep the rest of us around just out of altruism? Keep in mind that a non zero number of the elites in society are likely sociopaths

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#75

Post by lynguist »

This makes sense once you understand the definitions of Hegelian an sich vs für sich and Lacanian objet petit a. It might look like rumbling to you but it is a very precise philosophical-technical text that does pure analysis. I liked it really a lot and gained much from it.

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#76

Post by ryoshu »

arjie wrote: post #56

All right, I get it. The driving impulse for why our societies and civilizations exist is the fact that we are complex beings with desires, emotions, and so on. A machine facsimile built to imitate these things will have no such drive to 'expand' so to speak. The bots talking to bots world is a problem only because the objective is finally for a human to observe the bot-bot conversation and have their objectives chan…

Some people write to convince. Some people write to provoke.

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#77

Post by aeontech »

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #63
acabal wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Headings can't help Slavoj, his writing is characterized by a few grains of interesting ideas totally overwhelmed within SAT-prep word salad.

> Therein resides the true libidinal enigma of this dispositif [...] This part near the end caught my attention: > One could effectively claim that Smith [...] stands in for the figure of the psychoanalyst within the universe of the film. Here Hinton gets it wrong: our (humans’) only chance is to grasp that our imperfection is grounded in the imperfection of the AI machinery itself, which still needs us in order to c…

Oh my god, that makes the Matrix world make so much more sense :)

Re: We remain alive also in a dead internet

#78

Post by grimgrin »

getpokedagain wrote: post #66
grimgrin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how many friendships do i suppose are replacing actual interaction with their log informed llms? you could be the first i suppose

I absolutely believe people in my personal and work life have run my communication to them through llms before sending me the llms responses.

at least in your personal life, you could tell those friends to please knock it off
Post reply on HN