Ignorance cannot be bliss
When that ignored will
Surely kill you

Lois Lane
June 1st, 2025

I almost don't know where to begin as it seems that you're entire argument as you wrote, summarized, boils down to, and so I quote..."...I don't care...", so I'll just begin there before I dig into the meat and potatoes of my counter.

I thought that you were going to actually expand on your argument but you've again boiled it down to a single phrase which is almost exactly as how you concocted your first post, so...I'll resurrect my operandi and write, though this time about sexual relations and plug in...A hole is a hole, "is it human or AI?, I don't care: it's sex...or how about this one..."I don't care to think about it deeply enough to actually understand how it will negatively impact others and will buy into ideas that someone else constantly and actively promotes at great monetary expense in order to reap huge financial reward on the back end". Which brings me to...

You throw the popular term "Luddite" as a simple way to push aside the real consequence of the removal of the human factor, which is seemingly the long game in my own as well as tons of others thoughts, without understanding that the breaking of machinery was so much more than how you portray it and which is a convenient putdown for anyone not embracing technology the way you think that you understand it. If you are in the opinion that free speech and democracy are a positive step forward in the growth of us as "humans" and that those which would enslave us cannot be allowed to do so are ideas that you think of as a good thing, then perhaps you wouldn't be throwing around a charged word such as Luddite.

Did you know that the Oligarchy of the wealthy created a law against the breaking the new machines (things, not people) that was punishable by death? Or that there was absolutely no dissent allowed or free speech tolerated in suport of a living wage, and of course the judiciary adhered to the idea that the British monarchy was above rebuff and so anyone who dared express their opinion was thrown into one of those horrible and inhuman warehouse prisons? And did you know that the government sent about 12,000 soldiers to brutally suppress democratic ideals and to staunch the growing democratic ideals of the French Revolution which was happening just across The Channel? No representation in government meant that there was nothing to be accomplished as the Oligarchy would always squash any humanistic reforms. The movement was literally snuffed out by state violence. The breaking of machines was not common criminality but rather a first step to gain popular democracy in Britain. If you are willing to understand where you have erred on the side of those that will casually throw around terms that are meant to alienate those wishing freedom of expression then look up Tom Paine's Rights Of Man (Paine was the first to be tried although he was already in France to assist in creating their new popular French government) or a woman named Mary Wollstonecraft (who died 11 days after giving birth to the future author of the novel, Frankenstein, one Mary Shelly). In my opinion not understanding the origin of and bandying it about an expression such as Luddite is akin to blindfolding one's eyes so to let that which seems frightening reign with the hope that it will not touch you. Ostriches are famous for that behavior.

The victor writes the history
Unless you've the eyes to see.

Sincerely

 

When LL talks about sex, you can bet your sweet ass that I get wet !

(LL is 60 in kabbalistic numerology. 6 + 0 is six. Six in Latin is sex. Coincidence? I thinks not)

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2025

Yeah... entry-level professionals.

 

I asked ChatGPT what I should say in a reply to this thread. It suggested that I say that: "Jayne Mansfield was solely responsible for the Brutalist movement in 1604".

 

Every innovation, in addition to advantages, has brought with it also new problems to solve. Think of the advances in medicine: antibiotics have allowed us to survive diseases that in the past led straight to death. At the same time it created an unprecedented problem: until 100 years ago, the world population was 1.8 billion people, today we are 8 billions, humans no longer die from simple infections.
Now: what solution do you propose to solve human overpopulation? Ban antibiotics?

AI is a fact: refuse to accept the reality will take you nowhere. Sure, the point is to distribute the benefits of this innovation to all humanity and not just to its rich elite. Stay tuned for more info on Marxism

 

WEF's Harari on AI and the "Useless Class"

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2025

Why is there no option for straight ban?
Okaaay, spoilers would be acceptable... if people actually used them.
Good luck telling Radio ( @PulseWave ) to follow that rule

 

The more wiser i get the more...

edit: No, wait, i just realised, ChatGPT does not really have smart answers, and if a person is not aware of that can very easily gain false knowledge, everything is simplified, whoever is managing that...just plays the human condition like any other exploitation.

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2025

Ban that shit, it's boring as hell as the people using it thinking they're cool.

If you need AI go to other places and sink in the sea of boringness, let it be a Free AI shit place.

 

I don't doubt we're just at the start of AI revolution, and industrial revolution is relevant comparison, but in a very different way,

industrial revolution was basically a replacement of human muscles for higher production output resulting in higher profit,
AI revolution gonna be a replacement of human brains to effectively eradicate people from governance resulting in... I don't know, but high-level brains and intelligence is what differs humans from every other animal on this planet, replacing that is beyond my imagination,

industrial revolution was a relatively slow process mostly in local areas initially that made a significant impact on society, AI revolution may be a relatively very fast process that will make unprecedented sudden shifts in society on global scale,

art, what is art? AI is questioning that now and will question many more standards and values we have,
AI has no real rules or fears, just biases and misconceptions based on what humans train it on, but is society ready for that?

in context of audio world, I'd say it's like when we went from (analog) gear to computers, at first people were very hesitant about it, then those that were slow to adopt were left behind, now everyone has a capable computer and analog is the rare legacy value to seek but not really competitive

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2025

The Dawn of Artificial General Intelligence? | World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2025

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2025

I generally find clichés hilarious, especially those about technology:

• Photography killed painting
• Cars killed horse-drawn carriages
• Drum machines killed drummers
• Television killed radio
• Internet killed newspapers
• Social media killed human interaction

….

Talking about the future, there are plenty of meetings and seminars out there about where AI will take us: there are endless hypotheses about the future, some are apocalyptic visions, others are of a better world. The reality is that no one has any idea where all this will take us. Everything is possible and every scenery is open: that's why I like this historical moment.
Going back to the OP, I have nothing against using ChatGPT in here to delve deeper into the topic.Of course, there are people who foolishly ask AI questions like "which is better: PC or Mac?" to then copypaste the AI output, feeling themselves the holders of the sacred truth.
In this case, the idiot is not AI but the user

 

Luddites strikes again

Kraftwerk left the chat

 

We can coin a new AI-related version of " Go Google It", for those who obviously have not done their homework. Problems with software? Just go read the thread on the sister site. If that doesn't work? Oh well.

 

Soon or later the war should begin.

Humans vs ...

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2025

Invaders from the planet Karen.

 

Well said.


I have zero issue with AI being allowed, but it's the prevalence of it that can become obnoxious. As many people here already pointed out, I'd like to be (uncharacteristically) generous enough to think that, it wouldn't be necessary to post generated responses on a forum if people with questions simply thought to ask a generative answer service first, and then fill in any gaps in knowledge or context with some fleshy sack of organs on AS. (That would require a mountain of initiative tho... )

On a similar note, you're wrong @scrappy —anyone who's been around the block more than once knows that the Hofnerb CelloCaster can't be promoted to greatness simply with the addition of flatworm reeds, only a fool would think otherwise.

 

Two seconds later:

WARNING: expand only if you have a 192K screen. Otherwise won't fit

 

The operative word here is "hope", something I don't possess and also a state of mind which I think provides unreliable conditions for citizen protections. I'm more inclined to say that states need to be forced to implement legislation that not only provides protections but also addresses the imbalances created as a result of the technological "advances". Little chance of that in the majority of countries however as most administrations are in thrall to capital. The EU probably has the best citizen protections of any state system but are nonetheless fragile. What happens in the UK is an ongoing process that could go either way, but I don't have much "hope" that the current, or potential replacement, administrations will stand up to the predators. Bits and Bytes is exactly how capital perceives citizens and an apt description I think.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm as overpopulation is most definitely a thing on a planet with finite resources.

The Luddites actions were based on one thing only - the threat to their livelihoods via the introduction of labour-saving technology that would lead to their obsolescence and redundancy. If the means of production wasn't in the hands of capital then that threat wouldn't be perceived and the technology would be welcomed as a beneficial reduction in labour for workers whilst maintaining an equal distribution of dividends. What one might call a win win situation. It is not the technology itself that is the problem, it is the implementation, control and suppression of resistance to the ownership of the means of production that is the issue.

The idea that advancements in technology can provide liberation from serfdom and intense labour is nothing new. The fact is that it should have been realised a long time ago and is only prevented from fruition by the interests of tyrants.

Recommended reading:

https://infed.org/mobi/william-morris-a-factory-as-it-might-be/

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/lib...ndustry-combined-with-agriculture-and-brain-w

 

I knew we were going to end up on Marxism, but this isn't the appropriate place to talk about it.
Totally agree that AI is just a tool. With a kitchen knife you can cut celery and carrots, but you can also kill a person with it. The problem is not in the knife (very useful for cooking), it is in who handles it and with what intentions.