Where do robots fit into Marxism?
Where they don't?
>The AI bubble is going to pop!>Stock in tech companies is going to crater!>No one’s going to use AI anymore!>All my genderqueer shartist allies on Bluesky will be vindicated!
>>18647167They are means of production, so the workers should own them.
>>18647185What workers?
>>18647179>He thinks AI is only coming for the shartists from bluesky
>>18647208They really don't realize they're larping
>>18647208The ones behind the AI>AI by corposBad, disgusting, literally satan>AI by the proletarianBased, Kino, Good for the workforce
>>18647214yeah, its also coming for clerical busy work usually occupied by braindead people who make like $15/hour!The hysteria over AI is so buffoonish. Its no different than people freaking out over electrical wires in cities or the printing press.
>>18647334It's an unregulated technology with a body count, of course people will have their gripesI think it's fair as for any new technology, cars used to be able to drive any where on the road without seat belts. Once regulations are settled people will calm down. You don't have to like them, I won't but that's how society works
>>18647406>with a body countOh no! Somebody think of furfags artists!
AI is literally made for people who don't like doing things>AI assistants are for people who don't like learning how things work>AI Chatbots are for people who don't like to socialize>AI art generators are for people who don't like making art>AI self-driving cars are for people who don't like driving etc etcWhere does that leave Marxists? I think it's going to filter out true Marxists from fake ones, because true Marxists love the grind but want fair compensation and representation for their labor so they're going to be anti-AI on the principle of it stripping the proletariat of the means of production with essentially slave work to line the pockets of the bourgeoisie and give them more power and influence over people's lives but fake Marxists who just don't want to pull their weight are going to embrace AI or they're going to reject AI on some identity politics grounds
>>18647426Fuck, meant to include this pic
>>18647424No, that's your problem, your scope is only limited to artists. If we ignore them my argument still stands.
>>18647334If programmer, it's coming for your job tooIf manual laborer (highly doubt it), its just a matter of time before robotics catches up and you're out in the streetsYou're only really safe if you're a NEET (modern day aristocrat) or independantly wealthy/business owner
>>18647432If you were bodied by AI you weren't important to beging with. These are the facts. Nothing of value was lost.
>>18647438By this logic no one is allowed to complain about immigration or changing demographics.
>>18647438What is your profession?
>>18647446AI didn’t rape 250,000 little girls in the UK
>>18647449>What is your profession?Not a commission furfags artist.
>>18647451It did help pedophiles produce CSAM of people's children.
>>18647457We can make laws against that and enforce them through programming limitations. What’s the programming limitation on a Nigerian crackhead with a knife?
>>18647454But what IS it? Why are you dodging the question?
buddyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall
>>18647457Chuddy is right thought.The main reason people hate immigration is because of their crimes and subhuman behaviour, but because THEY TOOK 'ER JOBS
>>18647461Why are you turning this about me?
>>18647465The problem is the TRPF is also a thing in self-proclaimed Marxist economies and Marx himself didn't actually have an answer for this
>>18647460So now you agree that regulations are important. That was my point, I am not anti-AI, I am just pointing out this is a new technology that society is still trying to figure out. And for society to figure that out we need to talk about what is good and bad about it. Acting like it's the only peice of technology no one is allowed to say anything negative about is silly.
>>18647476Why are you refusing to answer the question?
>>18647480I never said AI should be allowed to generate anything with no limits
>>18647446AI rapes less, steals less, and kills fewer.Nons are way worse than AI.
AI art has never been and will never actually be an issue because it's simply not a threat to any art or entertainment centric market because the low-art world is dominated by celebrity culture which requires real figureheads that AI cannot replicate and the high-art world is full of snobs who will always reject AI on grounds that artists cannot even legally defend copyright ownership over AI generated works and AI not made by a human isn't relevant to humans anyways. AI generated artworks place is strictly for people who don't like making art, so you're going to mostly see it used for memes or other low-effort shit. If you're putting any level of effort into having an AI generate something, you are better off just making it yourself. This is just the reality of it
>>18647457So what? Who is the victim here?
>>18647497You are assuming there will always be clear distinctions between AI art and human art. The reality is that AI is already used in undetectable ways in the creation of "human" art.
>>18647334Electrical Wires and Printing Presses actually provided a utility. AI does not. Like the blockchain before it, it's only "value" is speculative.
>>18647505It's used in ways that's legally defendable, which means they have to prove the majority of work was done by humans, so in cases like that AI is just used as a tool at best
Nobody itt is addressing the question. How does Marxist theory account for automated labor? What will happen in a few years when robots take every job, even the physical ones? What will class conflict look like?
>>18647514>webmdon't we already have tractors that can do that at 10x the speed?
>>18647514No one except retarded zoomers take Marx seriously anywayBut to answer your question, we are probably getting culled and the only humans alive will be a select group of pedophilic Jews
>>18647515Idk, I'm not an expert in jobhaver lore
>>18647512There is no way to prove that. There may be AI artifacts in image and audio rendering(for now) but there is no way to know how much of a musical composition or movie script or whatever is AI.
>>18647499...the children? We punish libel and Slander, we punish revenge porn and we punish regular CSAM, why is this suddenly okay?
>>18647167>>18647514Marxism is an end of history theory that has failed to make a single accurate prediction in 150 years of existence. Marx was the Fukuyama of his day. He assumed that Western industrial unionism was the ultimate end-state of humanity based on nothing, and that once communism had been achieved globally the world would just kind of run on autopilot forever. He never accounted for the possibility of any new major technological or political innovations because he assumed they would never happen. So no, Marxism doesn't account for AI because it doesn't accept for anything after the 19th century.
>>18647514Marx basically believed AI would lead to MarxismMarx believed that Technology is a tool used by Capitalists to increase their profits, thus reducing human surplus value, reducing the overall rate of profit, and giving way to Marxism eventually as the working class demand higher living standards in a post-worker world.
>>18647525>There's no way to prove thatThere are plenty of ways to prove discrepancies between artwork and writing/production credits, and companies don't want to risk the legal battle over it. The bigger the production crew, the harder it is to hide AI involvement, but a smaller production crew lowers the value of the finished product. It's just how it is
>>18647514Honestly, the answer depends on how seriously we take the likelihood of AGI or even Super Intelligence appearing. If we take the Tech Optimist route, where AGI is an independent entity capable of doing any task a human can better, then it kind of breaks Marxism in that only humans are capable of doing labor. If there's something non-human capable of doing human labor, to the point you don't even need human workers in the system, the philosophy couldn't comprehend a world like this existing. Obviously, it can be used as an example against Marxism, because Marxism was a very human-focused ideology. If we were able to achieve super intelligence that was benevolent to humans and didn't just wipe us out on the spot, then, in theory, it would just make capitalism redundant (since we would enter a post-scarcity society and then we just arrive at communism through an alternative route). However, if we take the AI skeptic route, where AGI, as proclaimed by the techno optimist, never happens then nothing really changes and AI is just another means of production.
>>18647544Describe the process. A scriptwriter turns in a script, a composer turns in some sheet music, a novelist submits the next chapter in their hit series, a musician uploads some of their work to spotify, etc. How do you figure out how much AI was used?
The most optimistic viewpoint of AI is that it would give way to a Universal Basic Income, everyone automatically gets paid for the work that's subsidized with AI, people get to work less and get paid more for it. Right-Wing tech Accelerationists have been pushing for UBI for decades because they believe it would reduce or eliminate the wests need for cheaper overseas and immigrant labor to subsidize the wests higher living standards, and Marxists see AI as a potential avenue to implement UBI as capitalists see maintaining capital influx as the only way left to maintain a higher rate of profit
>>18647555People who like making things don't use AI anon, I'm not really sure if you know this.
>>18647547>in theory, it would just make capitalism redundant (since we would enter a post-scarcity society and then we just arrive at communism through an alternative route )There would still be scarcity, people just wouldn't have to work. You would still have finite resources and need free markets to determine how to allocate them.
>>18647558This is not true and doesn't answer the question.
>>18647562>This is not trueAI is designed specifically for people who don't like making things themselves, if you have a piece of artwork in your head, yo wouldn't use an AI for it, you'd just do it yourself, because an AI tends to just make whatever it wants to based on your prompts until you just get to the point where you're putting more effort into prompt engineering just to get an AI to output specifically what you wanted than you'd just be putting in by making it yourself. Logistically it just doesn't make any sense
>>18647560I guess you are right. We also wouldn't be able to produce more land or more time so scarcity would exist. Maybe it would be a UBI timeline?
>>18647566Someone can enjoy making things but not have the time or ability to make things of all vocations. A lot of art is also not made for passion but for a paycheck. In any case you're still not answering the question. You said there are plenty of ways to tell, so how do you tell?
>>18647581Well in the case of a copyright battle over production credits, you can stretch out a courts discovery process until you waste the production companies time and money enough to have it settled out of court, which is not something a production company has any interest in wanting to do, so they're not going to want to waste their money and reputation on an AI production in the first place. That's basically what Hollywood unions are there for, because Hollywood always had a history of trying to fuck over cast and crew
>>18647514It accounts for it no differently than any other form of automation. It's no different than any other assembly line tool from the Victorian powered loom to the modern robo-arm in a car factory, it's not about the tool, but who owns it and receives the surplus value it generates.
>>18647622>you can stretch out a courts discovery process until you waste the production companies time and money enough to have it settled out of courtThis still doesn't answer the question. How does the discovery process discover that AI was used, let's say in the example of the scriptwriter using some AI? >which is not something a production company has any interest in wanting to do, so they're not going to want to waste their money and reputation on an AI production in the first place Isn't this who the production credit dispute would be with in the first place? The production company trying to not credit the AI user?
>>18647663It is different because a loom still requires a human worker to operate in some way. Once AGI is achieved, there will simple be no human workers. Labor value will be 0, there will be no surplus and only the capital owning class will remain. The future is a kind of perfect anti-Marxism.
>>18647687That doesn't work because human capital is required for generating surplus value. AI can't really do this. Some kind of UBI will be necessary to maintain capital influx amongst the lower classes to maintain any semblance of an economy. Marx knew technology would lead to this by the way
>>18647697There doesn't need to be an economy in the traditional sense. The capitalists will simply use AGI to produce whatever they want and that will be that.
>>18647708AGI requires continent-spanning infrastructure, which requires some kind of economy to achieve in the first place. You don't see AI bros wanting to drop datacenters into the middle of Africa now do you?
>>18647712Yeah and that infrastructure can be maintained and expanded by AGI workers once AGI is achieved. There will be no need for human workers with AGI.
fragment on machines
>>18647167This shit was already outdated with computers and digital technologies, look how badly America obliterated USSR with producing both. It’s time to sweep it to the same category as Lolbertism and Anarchism, its not the mid 19th century anymore.
>>18647185>They are means of productionthey are literally enslaved workers, retardrobots are just a replacement for the blacks that they can no longer own
>>18647167They're technical means of production. For Karl Marx the historical figure, the problem with capitalism is that production is organized for the purposes of making a profit. Technological improvements by themselves aren't by themselves bad, he might have even thought of robots as potentially emancipatory because he described capitalism as constantly "revolutionizing the instruments of production," but there was a paradox to this because this constant revolutionizing transforms labor into more and more of a "watchman and regulator" to production, like more and more jobs of the future will just be monitoring machines which do the work, but since capitalism also depends on labor in the direct form as a source of wealth, capitalism itself is working towards its own dissolution as the actual human labor involved approaches zero.
>>18647532>Marxism is an end of history theory that has failed to make a single accurate prediction in 150 years of existence.Engels' prediction in the 1880s of WWI was really scary though. He even got the death toll about right.
>>18647765>but since capitalism also depends on labor in the direct form as a source of wealth, capitalism itself is working towards its own dissolution as the actual human labor involved approaches zero.This is incorrect.
