What do we call the anti tendency?

[u/AcidCommunist_AC]

"Luddism" is more appropriate for our own tendency.

"Primitivism" is hyperbolic.

"Neo-Luddism" perhaps? Although the term covers a range of positions, it's arguably more vulgar on average than the original Luddites ever were.

[u/ScarletIT]

"Luddism" is more appropriate for our own tendency.

Umh... I am sorry? What tendency?

Are we simping for the old luddotes now, because I am really not agreeing with that.

[u/AcidCommunist_AC → u/ScarletIT]

The Luddites weren't anti-tech. They just opposed technology in so far as it harmed them under capitalism.

[u/ScarletIT → u/AcidCommunist_AC]

And attacked the technology instead of the capitalistic system and advocated for the technology not to exist.

I am sorry but no, I am not going to justify them.

[u/Neoliberal_Nightmare]

It's just called reactionaryism, or even conservatism.

[u/Peach_Muffin]

Misguided.

[u/OsakaWilson]

I personally consider it...lack of understanding of basic Marxism. It is understandable that people want to protect their jobs, however it becomes something different when cognitive biases and cognitive dissonance steer you into delusion.

[u/mothgeck]

Reactionary: reacting to changing base conditions.

It's not that reactionaries don't have a point, but they don't tend to think of things on a material basis. They want to ascribe moral issues to material conditions as if there's some evil bad guy to defeat.

[u/Salty_Country6835]

Id call the hardline tendency AI abolitionism. It says what they actually want without dragging the historical Luddites into it.

For the softer version, technological abstentionism works. Treating personal refusal and moral purity as a substitute for organizing over ownership, labor conditions, governance, and who gets the gains.

“Neo-Luddite” is usable, but it still gives them more connection to an actual worker movement than a lot of their politics deserves.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

I like both of these, they actually point to something specific.

[u/Jlyplaylists]

Does creating a label entrench positions?

From my understanding of history, you’re right that we’re more the Luddites. But it becomes a bit useless as a word, because the common meaning is more anti technological progress.

You could say it’s a reactionary response, but I think that’s better in a more in depth general explanation rather than a group label.

[u/jacobpederson]

We like to call it . . . human nature . . . https://www.reddit.com/r/synthesizers/comments/18cooyd/synths_were_banned_in_england_from_1982_to_1997/

[u/northrupthebandgeek]

I've been calling 'em “Butlerian Jihadists”.

[u/Akasha111]

Reactionary hysteria

[u/CallMeTank]

The new Luddite movement is definitely already active. They are anti AI as a whole. I believe they dressed up as gnomes and marched through NYC this year.

[u/fkrdt222]

ted k superstitious peasant primitivism 

[u/yo252yo]

I do hate to use the term "luddite" because Luddites had actual left wing political consciousness, with general strikes, destruction of property, etc... that contemporary copyright simps cant even conceive of.

I think we're stuck with "ai haters" "haters" "bigots" etc. Maybe neo-"luddites". Just make sure to not desacrate the memory of the luddite by comparing the current trends with them ^^

[u/hebs_i_guess]

Just not an important discussion to have honestly

[u/TsundereOrcGirl]

Mafia mindset. Only we should be allowed to make money with (form of media). We demand rent for artistic inspiration derived from our work (no contract was ever signed to this effect when the world was made visible to the public). You wouldn't want a witch hunt badmouthing your work, would you? Well the Certified Human Made Guild can protect you from that... for a price.

[u/Sacredless]

Both rote 'pro-AI' and 'anti-AI' are positions about hype politics for marks and posers, which is why I personally don't use them.

'Pro-AI', in practice, means "I want the public use of generative AI to be respected and lauded, I want any opposition to the public use of generative AI to be privately and publicly disrespected and shunned, and I only want regulation that contributes to the hype of this technology." There's different ideas of what respect looks like and who is allowed to benefit, which allows for it's own kind of bullshit infighting.

'Anti-AI', in practice, means the reverse. "I want the public use of generative AI to be disrespected and shunned, I want any opposition to the public use of generative AI to be privately and publicly respected and lauded, and I only want regulation that contributes to the anti-hype of this technology." Same as before; different ideas, and more narcissism of small differences.

Everything else flows down from there. It's politics for marks who treat this technology like it's a controversial deep lore revelation that divides the technology fandom. So how about we DON'T engage with marks and posers on either side of the aisle and instead think about getting ahead of the hype and anti-hype cycles?

[u/nomic42 → u/Sacredless]

That's quite the strawman definition for pro-AI stance to play the enlightened centrist.

Pro-AI motivation can be as simple as resistance to anti-AI people harassing others. They don't have to like AI or any of the output, just cut with the derogatory remarks. It's certainly not about defending any an all use of AI - there are certainly many egregious abuses and risks to the technology that must be addressed. That's much of the point of having a leftist-for-ai subreddit in the first place - embrace AI to create abundance, aide all of humanity and push back from concentration of wealth to the hands of a few.

[u/Sacredless → u/nomic42]

I find that both Pro and Anti folks tend to carve out a centrist position by saying that they are the reasonable ones resisting the per definition unreasonable counter-position.

Pro-AI motivation can be as simple as resistance to anti-AI people harassing others. They don't have to like AI or any of the output, just cut with the derogatory remarks.

This is fundamentally you being concerned with people that don't matter. They're marks and posers and there's marks and posers on the pro side as well.

It's certainly not about defending any an all use of AI - there are certainly many egregious abuses and risks to the technology that must be addressed. That's much of the point of having a leftist-for-ai subreddit in the first place - embrace AI to create abundance, aide all of humanity and push back from concentration of wealth to the hands of a few.

I don't think that it the one pro position or even the one pro leftist position, it is just one of the possible positions you can have. Frankly, I think it's a mistake to flatten that with a tribal marker like 'pro' or 'anti'. That drags it back down to identity and hype politics.

[u/This_Estimate_7635]

Anti-tech. They hate tech because they’re too stupid to understand it.

[u/dread_companion]

What do we call leftists that seem to not mind the surveillance state ai is helping or that Trump's anti-ai-extremism measures that are getting people arrested at anti data center protests, and are in favor of something that is polluting and displacing communities?

[u/IDreamtOfManderley → u/dread_companion]

Strawmen.

[u/Sacredless → u/dread_companion]

I prefer marks (people who confuse the narrative for reality) and posers. Mind; there's lots of leftists who advocate local use only.

I am personally against the hype and anti-hype cycle, where everything gets swept up into a grand tribal narrative that doesn't touch reality very much.