Cowbee

The AI is not suggesting anything ny virtue of being itself. The social consequences of a given tool depend on the way society is structured, based on the mode of production.

It's more sabotage behavior to call leftists agitating liberals to get them to read theory feds. Rather than trying to provide alternatives to get liberals to read theory, you're defending liberals against leftists while claiming to be a "real leftist." That's wrecker behavior.

That's why it's better to join a good org like PSL, so that the working class can actually take charge, rather than walk hand in hand into barbarism. We need to learn from what's worked in the past to create a better future for all of us, and that starts with proper theory and practice. I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list just for my own use when I try to agitate and educate others. I think that would be a good place for you to start if you haven't started reading theory yet.

Returning to the beginning of this thread, the DNC and GOP are both relatively the same when it comes to foreign policy. They already are close to the same domestically, but they are near identical for the global south, because the US Empire is the world's imperialist hegemon. The working class needs to work towards decolonization, anti-imperialism, and socialism, and it can only do so through its own party, not bourgeois parties. We must be practical, simply trying to work with the tools the empire wants us to will never work.

The Principles of Communism is really a nice intro to communist theory, I have it as the first work read in the introductory Marxist-Leninist reading guide I made. That being said, it likely isn't creating a communist yet, just planting the seeds for one. Education doesn't have to just take the form of telling others to read theory, explaining concepts also helps, like imperialism.

It's more that leftists have been discussing and bringing about better societies for centuries, agitating and organizing, so if we want to take things seriously we need to learn from what works and what doesn't. That's why I made an introduductory Marxist-Leninist reading guide. It's to help people new to theory.

Education is still important, because people's openness to new ideas depends on their current material conditions. As conditions decay, radicalization increases, and so does people's willingness to get organized and read theory.

The existence of AI itself does not imply anything. It's a tool. The social function of AI is determined by the mode of production.

The social role of a tool depends on its relation to the overarching mode of production, it isn't a static thing intrinsic to a tool. AI doesn't care about advancing any ideas, it's just a thing that exists, and its use is up to how humans use it. This seems to be all very idealist and not materialist of you.

I really don't follow, something like Deepseek is quite literally a program trained on inputs that spits out an output depending on prompts. It isn't inherently political, in that its relation to production depends on the social role it plays. Again, a hammer isn't always capital, it is if that's the role it plays.

AI is, quite literally, a tool that approximates an output based on its training and prompting. It isn't a political artifact or anything metaphysical.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. AI is not intrinsically capitalist, it isn't about cedeing autonomy. AI is trained on a bunch of inputs, and spits out an output based on nudging. It isn't intrinsically capital, it's just a tool that can do some things and can't do others. I think the way you view capitalism is fundamentally different from the way Marxists view capitalism, and this is the crux of the miscommunication here.

Tools are different in different modes of production. A hammer is capital in the hands of a capitalist whose workers use it to drive nails, but is just a tool in the hands of a yeoman who uses it to fix up their homestead. My driving point is that art and AI images have intrinsically different use-values, and thus AI cannot take the place of art. It can pretty much occupy a similar space as stock images, but it cannot take the place of what we appreciate art for.

Humans will never be equivalent to machines, but products of labor and products of machinery can be equal. However, what makes art "useful" is not something a machine can replicate, a machine is not a human and cannot represent a human expression of the human experience. A human can use AI as a part of their art, but simply prompting art and churning something out has as little artistic value as a napkin doodle by an untrained artist.