It was plainly asserted, with zero explanation, that "[rejecting AI] makes me a luddite, and that's a good thing, because the luddites were right". In what sense were the luddites right? Would it have been better to still have manual looms in textile production? And were they right to destroy new technology to protect their narrow personal economic interest?
There's perhaps an irony in discussing "AI" a phenomenon so misunderstood as to be anthropomorphism. You either create effective (sentient) AI, the ultimate slave; or you create something penultimate to that, the ultimate machine and or tool. The ultimate slave, and even the ultimate tool moves power over capital back into the hands of the masses. Decomputing would mean the complete abdication of capital by the proleteriat. Nevertheless both are a kind facism - either the facism of human supremacy; or the facism of a central state demanding that we don't use THAT tool. Neo-trotskyite enthusiasilism and naivety all over again.
It was plainly asserted, with zero explanation, that "[rejecting AI] makes me a luddite, and that's a good thing, because the luddites were right". In what sense were the luddites right? Would it have been better to still have manual looms in textile production? And were they right to destroy new technology to protect their narrow personal economic interest?
There's perhaps an irony in discussing "AI" a phenomenon so misunderstood as to be anthropomorphism. You either create effective (sentient) AI, the ultimate slave; or you create something penultimate to that, the ultimate machine and or tool. The ultimate slave, and even the ultimate tool moves power over capital back into the hands of the masses. Decomputing would mean the complete abdication of capital by the proleteriat. Nevertheless both are a kind facism - either the facism of human supremacy; or the facism of a central state demanding that we don't use THAT tool.
Neo-trotskyite enthusiasilism and naivety all over again.