I was of this opinion exactly but it is undialectical.
Please consider the following narrative:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
As lenin states in left wing communism, purism is absolute idiocy. While the party ideology must remain pure, the outside world never is and never will be.
We have to use populism, demagoguery, every dirty trick in the book.
Also he states that we must only judge deeds, never words. Everything is okay that gets the job done.
Btw this also happens in Germany where the left party wont vote for reforms because the alt right does. This is called ultraleftism and is dysfunctional crap.
I understand what you’re saying here and to an extent I do agree but as a writer myself I won’t deny my immediate bias against AI in the arts. My passion is under assault from machines that lack that same passion, used by people who are lazy and unskilled, promoted by the very people making my life as a prole actively worse for their own profit, and polluting the very medium I want to participate in. The arts have already been placed under siege by capitalism and AI is just another front in that war against human culture. This is a very personal issue for me as a consequence.
I sympathize. Still, this is textbook reactionism. Please reread your theory to let go of this nonsense. Its the same reactionism the luddites had (also for even better reasons because the machines actually killed them at times, they were very dangerous). But the issue is misdirected. It is not the machine that kills you, it is the factory owner, buying the machine and the system, enabling him.
With ai it is the same. It is a tool, nothing more. Try to explore it dialectically and you will see how much energy you are wasting thinking about this. Its not worth it.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it’s worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It’s precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is “reflexively rejected” requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
My argument is that it’s worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that’s worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all “consider” this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
I did in fact not see that you took over from the other person but your claim is no less incorrect.
I was of this opinion exactly but it is undialectical.
Please consider the following narrative:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
As lenin states in left wing communism, purism is absolute idiocy. While the party ideology must remain pure, the outside world never is and never will be.
We have to use populism, demagoguery, every dirty trick in the book.
Also he states that we must only judge deeds, never words. Everything is okay that gets the job done.
Btw this also happens in Germany where the left party wont vote for reforms because the alt right does. This is called ultraleftism and is dysfunctional crap.
I understand what you’re saying here and to an extent I do agree but as a writer myself I won’t deny my immediate bias against AI in the arts. My passion is under assault from machines that lack that same passion, used by people who are lazy and unskilled, promoted by the very people making my life as a prole actively worse for their own profit, and polluting the very medium I want to participate in. The arts have already been placed under siege by capitalism and AI is just another front in that war against human culture. This is a very personal issue for me as a consequence.
I sympathize. Still, this is textbook reactionism. Please reread your theory to let go of this nonsense. Its the same reactionism the luddites had (also for even better reasons because the machines actually killed them at times, they were very dangerous). But the issue is misdirected. It is not the machine that kills you, it is the factory owner, buying the machine and the system, enabling him.
With ai it is the same. It is a tool, nothing more. Try to explore it dialectically and you will see how much energy you are wasting thinking about this. Its not worth it.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it’s worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It’s precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is “reflexively rejected” requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
I said there are some that reflexively reject ai. Do you dispute that?
Thats only a tiny part of what you said.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
Otherwise youre just incorrect.
My argument is that it’s worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that’s worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all “consider” this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
Quote me then. Ive been precise with my claims. You.kight be confusing me with another poster
I did in fact not see that you took over from the other person but your claim is no less incorrect.