How is AI cognitively damaging under all circumstances? You just left this hanging like it's a fact, but that requires incredible effort to prove. Is using a calculator cognitively damaging? What about a search engine? What is it about using AI that makes it cognitively damaging?
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
"Every random idea" meaning AI can take the place of some stock photos, and not all, as in we don't need to do the traditional stock photo process for every random idea, AI can replace some of them. As for the quality of the output, that's something that varies from case to case, and further the idea isn't to replace human art in general, but to exist alongside in instances where a human artisinally producing it isn't the purpose, but the traditional means to an end. Therefore, it doesn't actually matter if we can tell or not, the goal isn't to decieve, but even that is getting blurrier and blurrier as AI improves.
Essentially, if an AI image can fulfill the same purpose as a stock image, then the act of creating the stock image through traditional means is just unnecessary expenditure of effort. We don't traditionally appreciate stock images for their artistic merit, but for a visual function, be it to convey information or otherwise, not because our goal is to appreciate and understand the artistic process a human went through to create it.
The core of your argument seems to be that using AI, under all circumstances, is cognitively damaging. You also call it a process and not a tool, but all tools have associated process, including correct and incorrect process. A hammer can be misgripped, causing strain on muscles and thus pain. You can also use a hammer for the wrong purpose, like driving a screw and not a nail. You can kinda do it, but it's less efficient at best, and harmful at worst. AI is similar.
I have never said that a process has no effect on the person performing a process. You still aren't adhering to materialism fully, even if you have improved. It's not about being bad-faith, I've been good faith this entire time even as you've openly mocked me.
Well, up front, it's nice that you at least cleared up that you don't consider Marxism to be socialist. I disagree with that, of course, but now that we've established that your definition of socialism is exclusionary of Marxism, then that does at least mean we can have a consistent conversation.
As for delegates vs. representatives, the PRC's democracy extends beyond simply voting for candidates and representatives. I already explained that each rung makes decisions for that which their area needs, and elect from among themselves delegates that they can recall. People's integration into politics isn't relegated to simple elections, but consensus building, feedback, drafts of policy, etc.
As for ownership, your argument was that politicians are literally owners of publicly owned industry, which isn't how public ownership works anywhere. Even if the PRC is centrally planned for the majority of its large firms and key industries, that doesn't mean those large firms and key industries are run for profit, personal enrichment of capitalists, participate in markets, etc. There's nothing at all resembling capitalism there, so state capitalism is an absurdity. I gave clear examples of capitalist systems with heavy state involvement, like Singapore, that better fit "state capitalism."
Either way, this will be my last comment too. Have a good one!
The left supports collectivization of production, the right supports private ownership of production.
Depends on the use-case. AI isn't a panacea, and the excessively pro-AI camp is deeply unserious, but it does have some cases it can function fairly well at, like stock image creation, that doesn't need to have backdrops, props, actors, etc for every random idea. That's the extent of it, really.
No, I did not argue against the idea that different tools are used differently to produce similar results. This is another strawman, something you seem fond of.
As for AI, if it's image generation, the user puts in a prompt and evaluates whether or not the output fits what they want, then adjusts. In the case of, say, a texture of wood for a game, this is pretty simple, does it fit or not? If it's for summarizing, generating names, etc it isn't a substitute for cognition, and can actively backfire like what can happen if someone asks AI to spit out code that ends up being buggy. Just because you can use AI to do something doesn't mean it's the optimal way.
Inter-class hierarchy exists, ie bourgeois and proletarian, but intra-class hierarchy also exists, ie worker and manager. The Marxist critique of class involves the fact that there's hierarchy, but that's not the focus, the focus is on class as a social relation to production as informed by ownership. I'm more than willing to agree that your critique is the general anarchist critique, and I'm okay with you preferring anarchism, I just think that if you're trying to argue that Marxism isn't a communist ideology because it doesn't hold the same view of hierarchy as anarchism does, that that's a bit myopic.
no. the power is always among the people who choose the delegate, formulate their mandate, and can recall them at any time. the delegate has no power over the people, nor is the delegate coerced into their role.
Just because the delegate was elected and is subject to recall doesn't mean it isn't a hierarchy, though. Unless your point is that the delegate can only do what 100% of those who elected them want, and if any oppose them then they have no power, but in that case everything would collapse to a halt. The PRC has delegates and elections, and recall elections too, so I'm not sure I understand your criticism with that.
As for not considering the PRC socialist, are you saying it doesn't fit the anarchist conception of socialism, or the conception of socialism that includes Marxism as socialist? Ie, is your argument that the PRC does not meet the Marxist understanding of socialism as well as the anarchist? This is something that needs heavy judtification if so, but if you just mean the anarchist conception then I agree, the PRC isn't anarchist and isn't pretending to be.
Sure, depending on which tool you use for a job, there is a different process of working. Some nails and materials work better with bigger hammers, some are fine with smaller hammers. The process of coming up with equivalent end-products while reducing labor-time and reducing injury is a part of improving the productivity of labor, which can, in socialism, be used to provide what people need while minimizing working hours.
There aren't any rules against replying seriously, and it seemed to me that you were taking it pretty seriously later on.
These are distinct hypotheticals.
In the first case, the question is if it is equivalent, does the use-value change? The answer is no.
In the second case, the question is "if we can tell, does it matter?" And the answer is yes in some cases, no in others. If the reason we want a painting is for its artisinal creation, but it turns out it was AI-generated, then this fundamentally cannot satisfy the use of an image for its appretiation due to artisinally being generated. If the reason we want an image is to convey an idea, such that it would be faster, easier, and higher quality than an amateur sketch, but in no way needs to be appreciated for its artisinal creation, then it does not matter if we can tell or not.
Another way of looking at it is a mass-produced chair vs a hand-crafted one. If I want a chair that lets me sit, then it doesn't matter to me which chair I have, both are equivalent in that they both satisfy the same need. If I have a specific vision and a desire for the chair as it exists artisinally, say, by being created in a historical way, then they cannot be equivalent use-values for me.