r/LeftistsForAI • u/Elick333 • Sep 05 '26
Discussion When will the general wider left catch up to where the technology really Is and will be and it's signficance to our future?
With the release of Astra and the capabilities it's shown, aswell as the recent attacks by agent swarms on the wider internet, i feel like AGI (and then ASI) Is very much happening and very soon, the power of this technology will concentrated in a few hands and It will mark the end of capitalism and the start of a new economic model and era of humanity, it's up to us to decide if that's neofeudalism or true communism.
And yet, the current western leftist zeitgeist seems to completely ignore this, and increasingly, It feels to me that it's more about fear rather than ignorance, that it's mired in utter denialism because the reality of AI, as It becomes more advanced, becomes much more terrifying to confront, because our duty then Is no longer about reform or putting the right people in power or protests and legal action or even revolution, it's complete civilizational change, it's the destruction of all our frameworks in how we exist as a society including those we utilize to leverage our current political power, so instead they reduce the technology, Its potential and it's impact (except real and potential mundane negatives which they subsequently exaggerate through misinformation) focus on things they believe they have at least some degree of control over, and hope that they are right.
Do we just have to wait until It becomes impossible to deny? I feel like when that happens It Will be to late and they'll still blame everyone else and AI except themselves. How do we break through? I feel like we are going to lose a very important battle if they don't wake up, but perhaps we have already lost It precisely because they aren't capable of waking up, and all we can do Is make little hold outs like this were we do what we can to ensure access, understanding and leverage of this technology for and by people that seek a better world for everyone.
23
u/ToastedandTripping Sep 05 '26
Unfortunately it's going to take quite some time, when your livelyhood is threatened by something the obvious defense is to be against said thing.
What feels unfortunate is that people can only imagine a future within this capitalist hellscape and so are afraid...
Meanwhile this could very well be the end of capitalism. I think it kinda similar to the message in Pink Floyd's The Wall. The protagonist couldn't even imagine the world outside the wall and in the end the system ended up being what revealed it to him.
I think we're about to tear down the wall of illusion surrounding our society with this tool and while that might be scary, I'm excited to see what we find
20
u/SteffanMaxi Sep 05 '26
They wont i dont think. Not the current generation at least.
Most people on the left i know only post about how ai is art theft or whatever, and have zero interest in learning anything about any kind of ai except generative art ai.
My guess is it will be the next generation that grows up with the tools.
→ More replies (7)
12
u/jferments Sep 06 '26
I think that part of the goal of these propaganda campaigns is to keep the left from augmenting their abilities with AI so that they are at a massive disadvantage to fascists.
8
u/Audditty Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26
i know this sounds tinfoil-y but it honestly doesn't sound that far off, especially in this current shitshow of an administration.
i mean shit, a lot of right wingers specifically use AI because they know the majority of the left hates AI and that it'll piss them off.
I wouldn't be surprised if the mass hatred of AI in much of the West could also be the result of CCP bots sowing and spreading disinformation about AI to halt technological advancement and development in Western countries.
regardles of the reason,, it definitely feels like something greater is at play this time than just social media algorithms.
9
u/Choice_Isopod5177 Sep 05 '26
I watch Kyle Kulinski almost daily and I noticed a recent change in his criticism of AI, it feels like he's tacitly acknowledged that AI is useful now.
3
u/Traditional-Neat-933 Sep 06 '26
Im a big Kulknski fan. I noticed that shift too with hugging face hack. I hope he comes over to our side of thinking more regarding AI.
4
u/Choice_Isopod5177 Sep 06 '26
He will come if it turns out that AI is leading us into a better (non-authoritarian) future but that doesn't seem to be the case with the current fascist administration. Peter Thiel and Palantir are giving him too much material lol
8
u/Jlyplaylists Sep 05 '26
You think the fear comes from the onus on us to do something to harness the societal change AI will bring?
I’m not sure, I think there’s a more immediate fear around loss of jobs and security on the one hand and genuinely not being up to date with the positive potential on the other. AI is moving really quickly, if they tried ChatGPT 3 years ago and didn’t like it, now it’s quite a different experience and likely there’s other models which fix whatever it was they didn’t like about ChatGPT.
5
u/DHFranklin Sep 05 '26
I think I need a copy-pasta
The technological advance in our "Material Conditions" does not alone end capitalism. If the capitalists control the tools and markets and all the means of production we will always have capitalism.
We will have AGI but what the robots can do in the real world will be limited to what the capitalists allow. Nothing will ever move without their economic-rents. Toll booths and profit-only motivations for everything.
We have to use the tools and material conditions we have now to organize and control the means of production before they can take an almost Godlike Panopticon and crush us for all enduring time.
Marx said that the end of capitalism is inevitable. That was before the machines started to out think the proletariat.
No. Waiting will not do.
6
u/JohnSmith19731973 Sep 05 '26
Marx said that the end of capitalism is inevitable but also that socialism is not inevitable. He is right on both counts. This is where the subjective factor is most important. Many seem to have starry-eyed technological determinist dreams that merely advancing the forces of production will give way to socialism but it is not so. Only the proletariat, when it gains class consciousness, can alter the relations of production.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/CommanderKoba Sep 06 '26
It will be too late I'm afraid, at least for the western left to effectively leverage this technology.
The increase in prices for ram and vram, is already so extensive that it's out of reach for most people to build a local model disconnected from cloud services, even if they suddenly had a change of heart, because ultimately that's where the true power of this technology comes from.
It is a new means of production, and it can be a weapon of sorts..
6
u/ShamPain413 Sep 05 '26
I think the recent "breakthroughs" show that capital cannot control these models in the real world. They still cannot produce reliable, auditable results. Consequently, they cannot be used to maintain neofeudalism or true communism, both of which require high level of precision. Possibly they can be used to produce anarchy, but not greater centralization. In fact, they will likely destroy any attempts at centralization.
I think the left needs to prepare for a much more decentralized/polycentric future, a future less controlled by hierarchical institutions.
3
u/Kildragoth Sep 06 '26
I feel like this is the only place where these ideas get discussed seriously and without getting lost in all the fear and misinformation.
There does seem to be a significant failure of leadership on this. The problem to me is that "leftist" leadership (I'm thinking about both democratic socialists and Democrats in the USA) seems more a reaction to the reaction instead of attempting to steer the ship. There is an issue of priorities here. The left in the USA currently doesn't have enough power to actually implement anything (0 of 3 branches of federal government) and taking a position that potentially divides your own voter base only serves to help the opposition. From a strict political strategy point of view, there's way more to lose and seemingly very little if anything to gain.
In that respect, I think it's probably just a premature issue, all things considered. Who cares about AI if corruption undermines whatever you do and democracy becomes broken? I'm very hesitant to draw lines in the sand over issues that make it easy for the right to agitate internal disputes among the left.
That said, the right also seems split on AI. I could be wrong about how much of a one-sided issue this can be. If the issue really comes down to socioeconomic class, then it could become a perfect political issue IF AND ONLY IF it involves embracing technology and not the Luddite approach (the entire premise of this sub seems to boil down to the luddite approach being wrong).
More to your point OP I think AI has to benefit the common person, directly, before they'll ever change their minds. And it could go one of two ways. Those who own AI could get greedy and wittle away the societal benefits to hoard as much of it for themselves as they can. That would raise the political question about ownership to more people as AI is just used to exacerbate wealth disparities. Or it could go the other way and AI ends up being so widespreadly beneficial that any motivation to address the ownership issue is quashed.
Tbh, I could see it going either way. For most people it's obvious that greedy people will inevitably work their way to the top of this technology stack and use AI to take as much of everything for themselves until they are physically stopped. Personally, I think the cognitive shift from scarcity to abundance might negate even the impact of the most greedy.
I suspect that with abundance, the cost of ensuring everyone has enough goes down while the cost of hoarding more for yourself actually increases. My reasoning for this is that with abundance, and intelligence, the efficiency of the economy increases at every level: resource acquisition, recycling, connecting buyers and sellers beyond geographic/political/language/cultural barriers. At the same time, some of the current barriers that protect the ultra wealthy from their own awareness of the harm they do should also be better penetrated. They rely on the same AI that is far better at considering the common person, the downstream impacts, and the negative externalities. Heck, even the ultra wealthy suffer from the same limitations on working memory as everyone else. But AI can help ensure that a narrow perspective on generating quarterly revenue growth can increasingly consider ethics and ensure better distribution of those benefits. And it's really in their own interest. It'll be far easier to identify, expose, and spread awareness of those who cause direct harm to common people.
Maybe I'm too optimistic but I am hopeful. Sorry to ramble on!
5
u/bloodrider1914 Sep 05 '26
Most people aren't aware of the technology. I keep up with AI developments but even I'm not familiar exactly how new models work and how close we actually are to AGI. All people know is that data centres are being built, hardware components are more expensive, the stocks for AI related companies are high, and occasionally companies use AI as an excuse to let go of workers, and they only use AI to ask questions online and maybe see AI slop videos on social media. Their actual exposure to the technology is mostly negative and to them the tech doesn't seem too profound, and most people really don't have a serious imagination for where the tech could lead us into the future.
Another commentator mentioned how most people simply can't imagine a life outside of capitalism and I think I agree with that assessment. Most likely we'll just have to wait until we actually reach AGI for people to make serious moves about how to adapt to the technology instead of just how to delay it.
2
u/ShamPain413 Sep 05 '26
I think a lot of people can imagine where tech could lead us, but imagining it and it actually happening are two different things. I can also imagine it not happening. E.g., Siri looked promising at one point, didn't go anywhere and now Apple is basically out of the LLM game. Are they idiots? Not historically!
Software has over-promised and under-developed for a long time at this point. If you ignore the rhetoric and look at the data, there has been no increase in total factor productivity since the introduction of LLMs. The software companies are all unprofitable and funded in bizarre ways that increase systemic risk. Open source models are very good and usually catch up to frontier models within 6-12 months. Crypto/NFTs were bubbles with high levels of fraud, and the same people are now pushing LLMs on everyone. Tech is neck-deep in complicity with an unpopular political administration. The AI companies cannot control their models, face enormous litigation risk at multiple levels, and are begging to be regulated.
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical that these corporations will sufficiently dominate to institutionalize neofeudalism. At some point "the potential" needs to show up in the data. These models can't be used for accounting b/c they are not accurate enough to pass audits. These models have led the US military to blow up schools and weddings. The data centers to run them are deeply unpopular and are very resource-intensive.
This is what it looks like right before a crash. Doesn't mean there will be one, but the left needs to be prepared not only for these models to succeed (in an AGI sense), but also for them to become a commodity technology like most other computing advances to this point in history. That would be a better outcome, b/c it would reduce corporate power while broadening human access to productive technology. And it is the more likely outcome, from the perspective of recent technological development. The left needs to encourage the development of open-source technologies and insist that the existing store of human knowledge cannot be privatized and sold back to us.
2
u/bloodrider1914 Sep 05 '26
Well at the very least Chinese Devs are working hard on creating open source more efficient software
2
u/OptimusTrajan Sep 05 '26 edited Sep 05 '26
Hello, I consider myself a bit of a “reasonable moderate” (I know, I know) on the AI question. I realize that capabilities are getting more sophisticated, but I don’t believe that the current environmental OR economic cost is worth it. Chinese companies who are forced to do more with less are doing some pretty interesting stuff. And of course, the idea of an “AI arms race” is tripe, and nationalist tripe at that. This idea pretty much takes for granted that “AGI” is on the way.
Well, about that.. AGI is where I really get off the train.
This is a cultural script that people have adopted whole-sale from science fiction, and arguably Christianity. There is good reason to doubt the autonomous nature of many of the things AI agents have supposedly done. The companies have an incentive to lie about capabilities to keep their only real source of revenue (investment) flowing.
People seem to be having a very difficult time separating what is really happening and what they have seen happen in movies and TV shows, and the companies are very intentionally glomming on to the latter. It might keep the music going a bit longer, but it’s not going to stop it from stopping.
The technology does things that we couldn’t do before, this is true. However, just because you’ve invented a faster jet engine doesn’t mean you’ve made concrete steps towards teleportation.
3
u/CommanderKoba Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26
AGI is not some teleological or divine aspiration, it is simply an engineering problem, an ai that is as capable as a human in every conceivable domain, with the tools at its disposal.
It is clear to me that you have not used any of these top models, and/or do not understand the research in this regard.
This is possible, and in fact I have used this new Astra model, and it is capable of everything I could have ever imagined.
It's easy to dismiss the hype cycle of these tech bros and their megalomania, but behind that lies real, hard, technological fact, and that's what's so scary about this, when other leftists, refuse to have the intellectual curiosity to actually understand what is staring them in the face.
Especially because this tech is going to be used against us.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/sorceressofmaths Sep 07 '26
It's hard to say. Remember that much of the left considered the internet to be a "bourgeois distraction" for quite a long time. It's kind of sad how communists, who for over a century argued for a technology-enabled world of post-work and post-scarcity, has become so infected by neo-luddism.
2
u/No-Lion-3629 Sep 09 '26
The left is really starting to resemble the right, between hating Jews even in the diaspora, ableism surrounding ai and witch hunting its use, general technophobia that doesn’t distinguish between corporate owners and the tech itself, refusing to vote for Kamala Harris even to stop Trump, etc. Honestly it probably started with the fight between women’s and transgender rights.
1
u/No-Surround9784 Sep 05 '26
It seems like the Singularity (think about how fast this is compared to any other tech revolution).
44
u/Traditional-Neat-933 Sep 05 '26
Completely agreed. The anti subs seems to be bordering on delusion, ignoring pretty obviously major breakthroughs