I had this acquaintance, we were talking about career paths and they brought up wanting to get a union job to be treated better; I contributed to the conversation. The word ‘capitalism’ was said by me and they were tongue and cheek about it, as if contesting capitalism is an edgy joke.
Around two weeks later they said they borrowed the communist manifesto from a friend, read it, and said Marx had some good ideas. Like whaaat?? What a jump. I’m surprised they even mentioned it because if saying the word capitalism gets eyebrow raises, I could only imagine what speaking openly about communism would bring about. And why mention this to me of all people?
Later that hour we were talking about AI and I said Marx had a good quote about AI but couldn’t find it in the moment.
Me texting later that day:
Found the quote: “It took both time and experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used” (Marx, Capital Vol. I)
Above is the quote which I’ve heard people apply to AI. To me it means that the machine isn’t the enemy, it is just the tool. It’s employment by capital (business owners using it to cut labor costs and reduce worker power) is how capital is using the tool. AI is an amazing technology with so many uses like cancer detection and stuff, but it’s not being developed in that way. So the final part of the quote is saying that AI is not the problem, but how it’s being used.
They said that was very intelligent and they felt the same. Though, they felt nihilistic about the direction of AI.
I understand that; it’s pretty depressing. Though, the more I read political philosophy, the more I can envision a different future.
They shared that it seems that ignorance is bliss, but then they hit me with the banger: “you can’t go back, but there is also benefits to not being ignorant. Like deeper reasoning ability and can recognize patterns”.
Recommended them Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti, and they said it’s really good so far! I can’t wait to hear their thoughts the next time we talk.
I’ve never met a ML irl, maybe I’m not in the right places. I spend most of my time at a university studying for a degree if that says as much. That is why this interaction was so important to me.
Comrades can be found when commiserating about our shared struggle; what would be idle thoughts and discontent, Marx (and many others) makes the unconscious conscious and gives us the words to communicate about our struggle.
Also this story is what inspired my other post (first post on lemmygrad.ml!).
I agree that’s how comrades are made. It fits with Paolo Freires theory on pedagogy of the oppressed. Limit moments where you recognize the limits of your own freedom are a an opportunity for developing a liberatory consciousness if shared discussion takes place around it.
I also agree, that the Marx quote applies to AI as a new technology. In principle, it can be used responsibly by a socialist state. It’s the democratic control of workers over the means of production that matters. But I’d caution not to jump to conclusions: sabotage and rejection of a new technology can still be valid strategies depending on the context. That’s not what that quote means. Marx was talking about technologies being adopted mostly for their genuine advantage in competition by reducing average socially necessary labor time.
That’s only a minor part of what drives the AI bubble. Instead, it’s a crisis of overproduction driven by falling profits, financialization and, crucially, state funding (accumulation through dispossession). AI companies are oligopolies who have taken out most competition to avoid market pressure. It’s an entirely different situation.
Right now, organizing against the pointless, overproduction of data centers is a strong strategy to enforce at least some democratic workers control over this technology and to directed at least part of the inevitable fall out from the coming crash back towards those who caused it.
Fear over unrealized returns on investment leads the capitalist class to push AI down our throats, even where it’s not reducing average labor time at all and in a very destructive way. Rejecting these applications is again a legitimate strategy at this point.
Given how dominant these two things are, and how weak our power still is, it might even be valid, at this point to organize against all or most forms of LLMs until we gain back some control.
Edit: to put it more simply: what Marx was talking about was small firms in a highly competitive market adopting the mechanical loom because it allowed them to lower prices and undercut competition. Sabotage could not have stopped that, because the mechanical loom made clothing both much cheaper and much better.
LLMs on the other hand are not primarily adopted in order to lower prices or improve quality. Instead, they are adopted under threat of a capital strike by investors fearing about their returns on investment on an overblown bubble. A firm that doesn’t “do” AI in whatever form (no matter how far fetched) doesn’t get credit and its investors sell its stock.
Marx was impressed by all the cheap fabric for sale, but when I go shopping, I don’t see any cheap AI clothing, cheap AI food or cheap AI gasoline. On the contrary, prices are going through the roof.
Organizing against this financial plundering of the economy enforces democratic control, lessens the pressure from the bubble and most importantly redirects it’s impact away from workers towards the ruling class.