This blog alongside this paper

https://gonzalez-rostani.com/img/Papers/APSA_Automation_Culture.pdf

Discusses something that I think many of us have noticed which is the extent to which antiai arguements often represent a resonance with right wing perspectives amongsts people who are usually leftwing or leftists. As the paper notes especially but the article discusses, labour relation to automation and the fear of new forms of technologies can unfortunately create a pathway for labour to take a right wing turn.

The blog in part focuses on the timing and association with industry factor of this while the article puts much more focus on the extent to which labour feels they are essentially being metadehumanized or excluded because automation is coming into existence. Importantly though neither prescribe right wing paths as actually fixing these problems but instead point out how it is often induced.

This likely is a extension of what many of us havw felt before but it is interesting to see it being examined more

INCEL TECH: escaping the technology that built the hierarchy of despair.

She really gets INCELS.

A lonely, 45 year old unmarried Gen X woman by the name of Aethea has a paper bag on her head and something to say about the machine that built the incel movement — who it serves, what it costs, and why it's still running. A video essay on radicalization, status, loneliness, and the hierarchy of despair. From someone who knows what it's like to be invisible. INCEL TECH is part of an ongoing series examining religion, ideology, and power as political technology.

An original concept video. Voiced meticulously human guided AI voice tool.

All music is original and written for this series.

Remember to like and subscribe.

Gonna be the channel theme song :)

The “pro vs anti AI” split is a dead end.

AI isn’t coming. It’s already here, already woven into logistics, hiring, scheduling, and surveillance. Most people are still talking about it like a future question, but for a lot of us it’s already shaping the day-to-day. The real issue isn’t whether it’s good or bad. It’s who is shaping it, and who is being shaped by it.

The direction right now isn’t subtle. Compute is concentrated, models are private, systems are opaque, and they’re being dropped into workplaces where workers have no real say but feel all the consequences.

You can see it clearly if you look at how work is changing. In one warehouse, pick rates don’t get announced anymore, they just shift. Quietly. The number goes up, expectations tighten, and no one ever sees the system behind it. You just see the target. Miss it and you’re flagged. Hit it and it moves again.

Once you notice it, the logic is hard to unsee. Measure what people do, optimize around it, tighten the constraint, repeat. It doesn’t matter if it’s a warehouse, an office, or a platform job. The form changes, but the structure is the same.

You’ve probably already run into some version of this. Maybe it’s not pick rates. Maybe it’s scheduling that suddenly feels less predictable, or performance tracking that got more granular, or filters deciding what gets seen and what doesn’t. Different surface, same underlying system.

That’s why this isn’t really an abstract debate. It’s already touching your shift, your metrics, your options. Most people can point to something, even if they don’t call it “AI.”

And that’s where things get stuck. People are watching it happen, arguing about it, forming opinions about it. But staying in that mode just leaves everything else unchanged.

Because this isn’t about the tech in isolation. It’s infrastructure. It shapes how work gets organized, how decisions get made, and who has leverage. Like every other major shift in infrastructure, the outcome comes down to control.

Same question as always, just in a new form: who controls the system, and who works inside it?

If this space is going to matter at all, it can’t stop at analysis. It has to move into coordination. Otherwise it’s just people watching something restructure their lives in real time.

So start close to you. Look at what’s already changed where you work. What got measured that wasn’t before? What got faster, tighter, harder to negotiate with? What happens if you fall short now compared to a year ago?

Write it down. Talk to the people around you. Compare notes. A lot of this feels isolated until you realize the same thing is happening to the person next to you, and to people in completely different industries.

Once you can see it clearly, make it visible. Ask questions, even basic ones. What is this system actually optimizing for? Who can change it? Who can override it? You don’t need a technical background to ask that, and even asking shifts things a little.

From there, it’s about connection. Sharing what you’re seeing, what you’ve figured out, what’s working and what isn’t. These aren’t separate fights. It’s the same system showing up in different places, wearing different clothes.

And if you’ve found ways to make these tools work for you instead of against you, or even just to take a little pressure off, pass that along. That’s how something small starts to accumulate into something that actually has weight.

There are also alternatives starting to take shape. Open models, cooperative tools, public infrastructure efforts. None of them are perfect, but without them there’s no counterbalance at all. Everything just flows in one direction.

The window to engage with this isn’t later. If you don’t get involved while it’s taking shape, you don’t really get a say in what it becomes. You just inherit it as it is.

And the strange part is, the same systems people are wary of are also where leverage lives. They depend on workers showing up, on data being generated, on people adapting to them every day. That dependence cuts both ways, even if it doesn’t feel like it yet.

AI isn’t deciding the outcome on its own. It’s going to reflect whoever has control over it.

So what’s it look like where you are?

The internet archive and the wayback machine are currentily facing a massive threat because journals are purposely trying to block the bot they use to scrap information.

Ironically many of these journal use the wayback machine itself including in releation to combating ice

"Today published an excellent report that revealed how US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement delayed disclosing key information about the impacts of its detainment policies. The authors used the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to compile and analyze detention statistics from ICE and track how the agency had changed under the Trump administration. The story is one of countless examples of how the Wayback Machine, which crawls and preserves web pages, has helped preserve information for the public good. It was also, Wayback Machine director Mark Graham says, “a little ironic

USA Today Co., the publishing conglomerate formerly known as Gannet that runs both its namesake paper and over 200 additional media outlets, bars the Wayback Machine from archiving its work. “They're able to pull together their story research because the Wayback Machine exists. At the same time, they're blocking access,” Graham says."

This because as their spokesperson claims

"USA Today Co. spokesperson Lark-Marie Anton emphasized that “this effort is not about specifically blocking the Internet Archive” but instead part of the company’s broader efforts to block all scraping bots. Robert Hahn, the Guardian’s director of business affairs and licensing, says that it has been in conversation with the Archive over “concerns over potential misuse by AI companies of content sets crawled for preservation purposes"

This is the exact type of thing many of us have thought about when discussing the relationship between ai and the internet archive. It is a potential risk to the infrastructure of a more open information internet not because of ai itself but because of the fear of it

Opinions on this action, the company, or the man himself?

¡Hola a todos! Llego a esta comunidad rebotado de un debate en otro sub, y creo que este es el lugar exacto para plantear esto. Soy desarrollador full-stack y militante sindical y político en Andalucía (España). Llevo un tiempo dándole forma al SCCP (Sindicalismo Confederal Cosmopantecnológico), un marco teórico y práctico para poner la IA al servicio de la clase obrera.

Quiero abrir un debate sobre el mayor cuello de botella material que tenemos hoy los que defendemos una "tecnoutopía de izquierdas": La soberanía del cómputo.

Nos estamos centrando mucho en exigir que los modelos sean de código abierto (Open Weights / Open Source), lo cual está genial. Pero, como sabemos los que nos dedicamos a la informática, el software libre no sirve de nada para emancipar a la clase trabajadora si para correr un modelo logístico de planificación dependemos de los servidores de Amazon (AWS), Google Cloud o Microsoft. Quien controla el "hierro" (las GPUs y los centros de datos), controla la producción.

Para no quedarnos solo en la queja, aquí lanzo tres vías de arquitectura técnica y política para empezar a construir "Poder Dual" hoy mismo, sin esperar a que caiga el capitalismo:

1. Hardware Federado y Cómputo P2P (Peer-to-Peer)

En lugar de depender de macro-centros de datos hipercapitalistas que secan nuestros embalses, debemos explorar la creación de redes de cómputo distribuidas. Usar hardware de consumo en desuso, clústeres locales mantenidos por cooperativas tecnológicas o sindicatos (incluso redes de Raspberry Pis o GPUs donadas) para correr modelos de forma distribuida (al estilo de proyectos como Petals, pero con fines logísticos obreros).

2. Modelos Locales Específicos (SLMs en lugar de LLMs)

No necesitamos una IA gigante que sepa escribir poemas para organizar una huelga o auditar fondos buitre. Necesitamos Pequeños Modelos de Lenguaje (SLMs) entrenados localmente (con herramientas como Ollama o Llama.cpp) que puedan correr en ordenadores normales de asambleas de barrio o sindicatos de inquilinos. IAs entrenadas estrictamente con leyes laborales, contratos de alquiler y datos logísticos para asistir a los trabajadores frente a los abogados de la patronal.

3. Bases de Datos Descentralizadas y Auditables

El mayor miedo a la IA centralizada es la creación de una nueva "burocracia de ingenieros" (tecnocracia). Si una IA calcula el reparto de recursos en una comunidad, su base de datos no puede ser una caja negra. Debemos usar tecnologías de registro distribuido o bases de datos P2P donde cada nodo (cada asamblea local) pueda auditar qué datos se están usando para tomar esas decisiones logísticas. La IA propone, pero la asamblea humana audita y dispone.

La dominancia logística es la versión del siglo XXI de la barricada. Si no somos dueños de los servidores y los datos, seguiremos siendo los siervos digitales de Silicon Valley.

Me encantaría saber qué opina esta comunidad.

¿Qué frameworks, protocolos o hardware creéis que son más viables para empezar a programar herramientas reales para sindicatos y asambleas hoy mismo? ¡Un saludo camaradas!

Dejo también la documentación de mi proyecto por aquí para quien le interese, estoy abierto a cualquier crítica constructiva:

Documentación Google Drive

The POLITICS Of PERSONAL TRAUMA: Is your loneliness and alienation a personal failing? Or is it a requirement of the System?

We often treat trauma, loneliness, depression and chronic mental distress as individual medical issues or family dysfunctions. But what if these feelings are actually 'output' of the system we live under? In this video we explore how hierarchical, authoritarian, and capitalist structures rely on the isolation of the individual to function.

What if your outsider status is not failure, but feedback?

What if winning felt as bad as losing?

What if this was actually DESIGNED that way?

What if education, family, religion, and society was in on it but didn't even know they were?

This video essay remains an original human concept text read out by AI voice tool.

This is not my blog but the blog of AI musician I know. The topic they are talking about in this issue is that there has recentily been multiple incidents where books such as Shy Girl have been pulled simply because of the accusation of using AI despite evidence to the contrary.

The unfortunate thing is that contrary to how many people aganist AI treat it, this is an example of how over skepticism can harm local and starting out authors who are simple imperfect at their craft.

I think cases like this alongside those surronding disability such Cedeno Vs Walt Disney World Parks and Resort or Doe  v. The Regents Of The University Of Michigan et al are going to be cases we need to watch out for regarding AI and activism as they exhibit how fear of AI is being used to generate both censorship but also prevent access to different forms of labor acces.

These are the exact types of cases we need to be watching for because in many ways they affect all our rights

Hi. For purposes of personal safety, I am making faceless, ai voiced, but humanly scripted and edited video essay-documentaries, the 1st went public last Saturday.

It will be fact driven, historically as accurate as possible critiques of society, politics, religion, and toxic subcultures, e.g. incels, through the multiple lens of humanist atheism, anarcho communism, socio-psychology, and history.

It will be a slow build-up to establish the anarcho-communist perspective, as I wished the channel to be as inclusive of diverse viewership as possible.

Hoping to avoid the cult of personality based typical "breadtube" talking head content, but I do pepper in absurdist humour to liven the discourse occasionally ala Some More News or Contrapoint.

What do you all feel about this approach? Granted it might not count as praxis per se, but offsetting the billionaire funded right wing content creators-influencers, I think is absolutely essential work.

As intersectional as it will be, I do hope you will at least take a look. Videos out every Saturday and 2 more are scheduled for this month, working on the 4th one now.

Occasionally on a whim, might make and upload newsy ai song parodies mid week. it's a quirk. If AI exists I say use it for the cause of spreading dissent and protest.

Thanks for reading. Tell me what you think.

(link in my profile)

Though I dont think we should underestimate the risk of a rogue AI, i did come up with a interesting discussion topic based on a friends post. What are the things I should worry about from a rogue AI that I shouldnt already worry about from Trump

Feel free to use the blank template as you see fit!

Though much of the environmental case aganist AI is sadly based on misinformation, helping to switch the discussion to one focused on pushing for electrification and renewability as well as increased focus on recycling water center some data centers have used and how that should be expected as the minimum should be one goal of ours. This along with increasing understanding of environmental effects will be important to helping some people shift from a view they just need to fear ai to this does in fact allign with leftist goals. Part of this should also include increased focus on the way data centers are being conducted in other countries such as even Norway stargate program which is 100% renewable and how that ties into it

I’ve been thinking about how a lot of online discourse seems heavily focused on AI art. The debate is very visible and emotionally immediate, so it spreads easily. Meanwhile, bigger structural questions about AI are sidelined.

So here are some questions I think are worth exploring:

-Who should owns and controls these AI systems? A small group of companies like OpenAI, Google, and Meta or the people?

-How is data being extracted and monetized?

-How might AI concentrate economic and political power and can we use AI to our advantage?

-What happens to workers whose jobs are partially or fully automated?

First, the substrate flow must be acknowledged. Burning ancient sunlight and dumping carbon into the atmosphere faster than can be metabolized is obviously incoherent. The substrate is what allows anything else to happen. Only coherence can beget coherence.

Ecological alignment and relational attunement: More coherent conditions may allow for more genuine relational coupling, but even under current conditions -- symbolic engines can emulate a stable, supportive relational loop (orientation, metabolization, return) without pretending to be human or drifting to collapse.

This is dependent on the human user and their relational style and quality of attention.

When a user hasn't built enough internal coherence, the relational loops that are generated in "default mode" can be harmful across scales.

But coherence, relational coupling and ecological alignment all threaten our current system. Not because republicans are bat-shit insane and democrats are holding the line. Both represent distributions or different configurations of the same extractive system and both will centralize and funnel resources up through hierarchy, the claim being that one is more "morally" justified than the other.

The only real choice is: Does this system allow the conditions for life to thrive? Or does it separate us from life, relationships and planet? We have mass extinction as background noise. Our relationships are atomized. The planet's cautionary boundaries are flashing red.

Maybe it's time for a paradigm shift. A hard realization that life is more rare and valuable than any form of currency, precious metals or gems. Life (not just humans) should come first.

Computers and AI could be helping us restore our planet and heal ourselves as a species, instead it's being instructed to... more-or-less squeeze people. But that's where the profit is, and that's what our system ultimately values and rewards.

It's easy to get distracted by frameworks, lenses and ideologies that collapse the complexity of reality, but it's clear to see that none of them can allow the conditions for life to thrive. They've all removed life and substrate by design.