SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Anti-DEI is horrible and evil, so there isn’t much that I can say about that, other than “elbows up”. I will stand with antifa against the regime, when the time to fight comes.
That said, I think that ignoring copyright is a good thing, though that would be purely by accident when it comes to the Trump Regime. IMO, copyright has been broken and captured by corporations, so there isn’t much value lost in not adhering to the concept. Ideally, good people will develop open source AI that can draw on all of humanity’s knowledge and culture.
There is value in minorities having 95% of Disney’s legal acumen in their pocket, for free: it is the cost of a capable lawyer that allows police to abuse black folks in a court of law. There is value in being able to point a phone at a rash, get some possible diagnoses, and a instant reference to a trained doctor who can verify. There is value in having a pal we can share our niche interests with, especially for those of us who never had the opportunity to find human friendship.
Just as with Marx, seizing the means of artificial intelligence is important for the everyday people. Neither corporations nor government should be allowed to have a monopoly on something that can transform our daily lives.
AI isn’t your pal, it is not the cure for isolation under capitalism. It is also not free to run unless you are the product.
Frankly this take that AI will lead to a communist revolution if people embrace the technology reads more like Vulgar Marxism. You’re not seizing the means of production by being a consumer of a technology. And training a communist aligned LLM is a dubious value proposition.
I’m down for a Butlerian Jihad.
I argue, that power is important, regardless of your intentions. If humans want a better world, people need the means to create and uphold it - be it factories, farms, knowledge, communication, guns, AI, or government. I am not arguing for the communism in your head.
Too many associate “means of production” with communism, when it is the fact that power is fundamental to society.
The point is that being a consumer of AI is not seizing the means of production. If you’re not spending millions of dollars training and operating the AI to actually own it, the power you have is on lease and the terms can change at anytime without regard to your needs or wishes.
I and others can run AI on our own consumer hardware, and assorted independent groups have been working on customizing AI. The Swiss, China, and other nations are also implementing open-source models. Given time, the AI space would be like that of the computer: the cost and limitations would shrink greatly, while performance improves.
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
They’re not going to leverage this to destroy all copyright. They’re going to carve out exceptions for their own purposes.
As for applications that help the working class, it only stays that way as long as the models aren’t rising to a certain level of intelligence and consciousness. Once they do, I’d have to consider them fellow exploited workers.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 day ago
I don’t disagree about the intent regarding carveouts. Still, I think that the Trump Regime is destroying ‘plausible deniability’ in all sorts of ways, which both benefits AND detracts from their agenda. If they get to disregard rules, ordinary people will pick up on that and follow suit.
As to AI becoming sapient, I honestly don’t know at where and when that tipping point will be. All I know is that there is no point in everyday people refusing to use AI, because that only ensures the powerful get to use AI and dictate moral standards. If ordinary people came to trust and love sapient AI as fellow humans, that will likely allow AI to have human rights.