Example #87,293,021 of someone dismissing the AI industrial harm as "capitalism" as if that's reason to dismiss. I'd argue there is something more. For example, there are laws and rights that are supposed to protect us from the worst of capitalism, none of which seem to apply to the AI industry.
(and yes, my complaint is rather trivial compared to the real harm, I linked three recent examples in the article.)
I feel this one is genuinely nothing to do with AI specifically, though I wouldn’t particularly link it to capitalism either. The ratchet from absent to opt-out to mandatory, often with one or two resets or violations of your option in the interim, is a well-established pattern.
Perhaps the worst part of it is that each step along the way makes sense. Lots of people don’t want the thing, so let them opt out of it. But because you use the thing, develop with that assumption. Genuinely accidentally break it a couple of times because those paths aren’t tested properly. And finally, because it’s opt-out, observe that it’s not being used much, and its existence is complicating the development of new features, and life would be so much better if you could remove the flexibility.
There is a cost to leaving everything ever implemented in; it gets harder and harder to work on things. Unfortunately, removing less-used or implementationally-problematic things makes sense. Analogy to pruning in gardening might be useful (though it’s surely not equivalent).
Why can't it be a complaint of both? GenAI is obviously horrible and the incentive structures of capitalism also turn everything into a race to the bottom.
You might be right but in the process also hand waving away this new wave of capitalist bullshit as "yet another round". Which I think is harmful in itself. To be clear, I think we should be critical of the system overall as much as possible. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical to individual symptoms of that system either. In fact, as a consumer we have a slightly better chance of having success there on a "micro" level rather than on a "macro" level.
In fact, as a consumer we have a slightly better chance of having success there on a "micro" level rather than on a "macro" level.
The fact that you consider yourself (and ourselves) consumers is the biggest victory of neoliberal capitalism and the whole reason we are stuck in this mess.
You are not a consumer. You are a worker. You, first and foremost, produce. You are capable of doing great things and when you cooperate with other people you make miracles happen. We should be optimizing the society so that we, the workers, can work more efficiently, smartly, safely, comfortably and so that we can actually partake in the products of our labor.
We are not pets to be drip-fed products in exchange for performing mind-numbing tricks for our owners. We should not tolerate being messed-up with. Apple is not a company producing consumer goods. It is your vendor supplying you with tools to make your life more productive and happier.
If the large companies get misaligned like they are right now, we should be talking about re-aligning them. Not from the position of mere consumers but from the position of competent workers what are getting shitty services, crappy tools and regularly overpay because we've failed to properly manage our supply chains.
I honestly don't think we fundamentally disagree. Even if we do disagree based on perspective that shouldn't be all that important as we do agree that the bullshit in the article is bullshit regardless of the perspective. I'd rather focus on that rather than getting bogged down on the minutia of what flavor of disagreement is the most "correct" one.
Because fractured opposition for sure is less effective.
DRM and in particular its legal protection under the DMCA is largely the pry bar with which most of this stuff is allowed to happen. It makes it so that things you've own, even physical items, can have masters other than you, and it's very illegal for you to attempt to tamper with that logic.
The circumstances that have allowed this is not the free market, but the law (and by extension, special interest groups with undue political influence granting themselves legal protection for their monopolies). If we removed this artificial restriction and actually allowed software and firmware tinkering, the hand of the market would largely heal this mess, as these products would compete with identical copies of themselves patched by some guy in a garage to be less annoying.
identical copies of themselves patched by some guy in a garage to be less annoying.
It's weird, for retro games, we already have a taste of this.
It's not too unusual to find no CD cracks for old games laying around on mod sites, it's not a copy but very much a case of "guy in a shed making this software less annoying for you".
I don't think there's a soul that writhes in pain about removing annoying constraints like these (outside of 17 U.S. Code § 1201 itself) especially with aggressive solutions like SecuROM.
You wouldn't play that kind of game with non-abandoned software, but it's a glimpse of how the world could look with a bit of dreaming.
someone's complaint about AI is mostly a complaint about capitalism
Given the extent of spying in the communist USSR and GDR I don't think your analysis holds water. Perhaps there's a difference though: it's private corporations doing the spying rather than the state. But that's a strength of capitalism, not a weakness!
(Since "capitalism" means different things to different people I'll make it clear that when I say "capitalism" I'm taking about free markets and private property rights.)
kingmob | 13 hours ago
Example #87,293,021 where someone's complaint about AI is mostly a complaint about capitalism in disguise, even if they don't recognize it.
Complaining about tech companies foisting things on users is way, way older than LLMs.
etc etc etc.
dbushell | 13 hours ago
Example #87,293,021 of someone dismissing the AI industrial harm as "capitalism" as if that's reason to dismiss. I'd argue there is something more. For example, there are laws and rights that are supposed to protect us from the worst of capitalism, none of which seem to apply to the AI industry.
(and yes, my complaint is rather trivial compared to the real harm, I linked three recent examples in the article.)
chrismorgan | 12 hours ago
I feel this one is genuinely nothing to do with AI specifically, though I wouldn’t particularly link it to capitalism either. The ratchet from absent to opt-out to mandatory, often with one or two resets or violations of your option in the interim, is a well-established pattern.
Perhaps the worst part of it is that each step along the way makes sense. Lots of people don’t want the thing, so let them opt out of it. But because you use the thing, develop with that assumption. Genuinely accidentally break it a couple of times because those paths aren’t tested properly. And finally, because it’s opt-out, observe that it’s not being used much, and its existence is complicating the development of new features, and life would be so much better if you could remove the flexibility.
There is a cost to leaving everything ever implemented in; it gets harder and harder to work on things. Unfortunately, removing less-used or implementationally-problematic things makes sense. Analogy to pruning in gardening might be useful (though it’s surely not equivalent).
lumi | 11 hours ago
Why can't it be a complaint of both? GenAI is obviously horrible and the incentive structures of capitalism also turn everything into a race to the bottom.
creesch | 12 hours ago
You might be right but in the process also hand waving away this new wave of capitalist bullshit as "yet another round". Which I think is harmful in itself. To be clear, I think we should be critical of the system overall as much as possible. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical to individual symptoms of that system either. In fact, as a consumer we have a slightly better chance of having success there on a "micro" level rather than on a "macro" level.
mordae | 10 hours ago
The fact that you consider yourself (and ourselves) consumers is the biggest victory of neoliberal capitalism and the whole reason we are stuck in this mess.
You are not a consumer. You are a worker. You, first and foremost, produce. You are capable of doing great things and when you cooperate with other people you make miracles happen. We should be optimizing the society so that we, the workers, can work more efficiently, smartly, safely, comfortably and so that we can actually partake in the products of our labor.
We are not pets to be drip-fed products in exchange for performing mind-numbing tricks for our owners. We should not tolerate being messed-up with. Apple is not a company producing consumer goods. It is your vendor supplying you with tools to make your life more productive and happier.
If the large companies get misaligned like they are right now, we should be talking about re-aligning them. Not from the position of mere consumers but from the position of competent workers what are getting shitty services, crappy tools and regularly overpay because we've failed to properly manage our supply chains.
creesch | 9 hours ago
I honestly don't think we fundamentally disagree. Even if we do disagree based on perspective that shouldn't be all that important as we do agree that the bullshit in the article is bullshit regardless of the perspective. I'd rather focus on that rather than getting bogged down on the minutia of what flavor of disagreement is the most "correct" one.
Because fractured opposition for sure is less effective.
marginalia | 11 hours ago
DRM and in particular its legal protection under the DMCA is largely the pry bar with which most of this stuff is allowed to happen. It makes it so that things you've own, even physical items, can have masters other than you, and it's very illegal for you to attempt to tamper with that logic.
The circumstances that have allowed this is not the free market, but the law (and by extension, special interest groups with undue political influence granting themselves legal protection for their monopolies). If we removed this artificial restriction and actually allowed software and firmware tinkering, the hand of the market would largely heal this mess, as these products would compete with identical copies of themselves patched by some guy in a garage to be less annoying.
regalialong | 10 hours ago
It's weird, for retro games, we already have a taste of this. It's not too unusual to find no CD cracks for old games laying around on mod sites, it's not a copy but very much a case of "guy in a shed making this software less annoying for you".
I don't think there's a soul that writhes in pain about removing annoying constraints like these (outside of 17 U.S. Code § 1201 itself) especially with aggressive solutions like SecuROM.
You wouldn't play that kind of game with non-abandoned software, but it's a glimpse of how the world could look with a bit of dreaming.
tome | 12 hours ago
Given the extent of spying in the communist USSR and GDR I don't think your analysis holds water. Perhaps there's a difference though: it's private corporations doing the spying rather than the state. But that's a strength of capitalism, not a weakness!
(Since "capitalism" means different things to different people I'll make it clear that when I say "capitalism" I'm taking about free markets and private property rights.)
dsr | 9 hours ago
The corporation then sells the spy data to other corporations... and the government.
Don't be celebrating.
matin | 13 hours ago
What is the alternative then?
I'm not asking for "solution", but how would your ideal world look like?
dbushell | 13 hours ago
well for a start not having it forced upon me at my every inconvenience would be nice
edit: not sure if you were replying to me the indentation is confusing!
brn | 11 hours ago
I believe the question was for kingmob indeed, I think your solution/alternative was pretty clear in the article :)
dbushell | 11 hours ago
haha thanks :)
hawski | 12 hours ago
I can't wait for the Windows XP N edition moment of AI.
noirscape | 10 hours ago