ChatGPT cannot imagine freedom or alternatives; it can only present you with plagiarized mash-ups of the data it’s been trained on. So, if generative AI tools begin to form the foundation of creative works and even more of the other writing and visualizing we do, it will further narrow the possibilities on offer to us. Just as previous waves of digital tech were used to deskill workers and defang smaller competitors, the adoption of even more AI tools has the side effect of further disempowering workers and giving management even further control over our cultural stories.

As Le Guin continued her speech, she touched on this very point. “The profit motive is often in conflict with the aims of art,” she explained. “We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable — but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words.” That’s exactly why billionaires in the tech industry and beyond are so interested in further curtailing how our words can be used to help fuel that resistance, which would inevitably place them in the line of fire.

[…]

The stories and artworks that resonate with us are inspired by the life experiences of artists who made them. A computer can never capture a similar essence. Le Guin asserted that to face the challenging times ahead, we’ll need “writers who can remember freedom — poets, visionaries — realists of a larger reality.” Generative AI seems part of a wider plan by the most powerful people in the world to head that off, and to trap us in a world hurtling toward oblivion as long as they can hold onto their influence for a little longer.

As Le Guin said, creating art and producing commodities are two distinct acts. For companies, generative AI is a great way to produce even more cheap commodities to keep the cycle of capitalism going. It’s great for them, but horrible for us. It’s our responsibility to challenge the technology and the business model behind it, and to ensure we can still imagine a better tomorrow.

  • TranscendentalEmpire
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Give it an example of an oppression and of people freeing from oppression.

    Right, but this is fascist literature you are theoretically inputting. I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of good examples of celebrating people escaping oppression.

    Of course you need to prompt for it, e.g. by saying "Spot oppression in places we don’t label it as such

    If you are inputting solely fascist propaganda… the machines definition of what oppression means is going to be inherently different than our understanding. Ideological definitions like freedom and oppression require historical and cultural context that the machine has no access to. And if they are receiving any context from your inputted information, it’s going to be influenced by the compilation of writers.

    Well that’s the surprising thing. You can prompt it for things it has never encountered.

    What do you mean by “encountered”? It can’t just imagine the correct definition of a word it has no context about.

    You can make it generate Shakespearian gay romance or theological arguments for the sainthood of Obiwan Kenobi.

    Because you have fed it countless amounts of reference points and context about those subjects. If you fed it nothing but literature written by neo nazi, it’s not going to have a clue who Shakespeare is.

    • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I would argue that “fascist literature” is a contradiction of terms. I never mentionned fascism and think it is a trivialisation of the term to equate sexist capitalism with it. I was thinking about things like Heinlein style scifi, pretty male centric, pretty pro-capitalist but one of the stories resolve around a former slave helping break a slave ring.

      Ideological definitions like freedom and oppression require historical and cultural context that the machine has no access to. And if they are receiving any context from your inputted information, it’s going to be influenced by the compilation of writers.

      Well, yes, like a human author I would argue. A human author who lived all his life in an authoritarian state would have a very limited and naive understanding of what freedom or fight for freedom could be.

      What do you mean by “encountered”? It can’t just imagine the correct definition of a word it has no context about.

      I mean “that is present in its training dataset”. I was talking about non-encountered combinations. Indeed, it can’t know the definition of new word, but if you provide a definition of it, it will be able to talk about it and imagine things about it. It it never encountered unicorn in its dataset, describe it as horses with a single horn on the forehead and magical powers and it will have no problem writing things about them.

      Because you have fed it countless amounts of reference points and context about those subjects. If you fed it nothing but literature written by neo nazi, it’s not going to have a clue who Shakespeare is.

      Obviously. Neither could a human. But I am pretty sure there is no theological argument for Obiwan Kenobi’s sainthood in its dataset. It knows about sainthood, it knows about starwars, and the interesting thing is that it knows how to combine it.

      • TranscendentalEmpire
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        would argue that “fascist literature” is a contradiction of terms. I never mentionned fascism and think it is a trivialisation of the term to equate sexist capitalism with it. I

        I don’t see how fascist literature is a contradictions of terms… fascist have famously written quite a few books.

        Nor do I really think it trivializes fascism to conflate sexist capitalist books as fascist literature. The vast majority of media that fascist regimes utilized as propaganda were just American movies and literature that had undertones of sexism, capitalism, and like almost all fictional literature, a protagonist that had the ability solve all the books problems.

        Heinlein style scifi, pretty male centric, pretty pro-capitalist but one of the stories resolve around a former slave helping break a slave ring.

        Heinlein isn’t particularly pro capitalist or male centric, especially for it’s time… he was actually kinda famous for writing about strong female characters that bucked the social and sexual norms for the times. The only “capitalist” book he really wrote was the moon is a harsh mistress, and that had more to do with governments than markets.

        Well, yes, like a human author I would argue. A human author who lived all his life in an authoritarian state would have a very limited and naive understanding of what freedom or fight for freedom could be.

        Right, but you didn’t claim that a human who had never been exposed to freedom could write a book that accurately portrays freedom…

        It it never encountered unicorn in its dataset, describe it as horses with a single horn on the forehead and magical powers and it will have no problem writing things about them.

        Lol, okay. That’s quite a bit different than what your original claim may lead people to believe.

        Obviously. Neither could a human. But I am pretty sure there is no theological argument for Obiwan Kenobi’s sainthood in its dataset. It knows about sainthood, it knows about starwars, and the interesting thing is that it knows how to combine it.

        Again, you are utilizing language that is not really an accurate depiction of what’s happening. It’s not making a theological argument, it doesn’t “know” that it is deifying a fictional character.

        There are reference points to obiwan, people like obiwan, people think he’s great, people say he looks like a religious character other people like, people like saints. It’s not analyzing the characters and making new connections no one has ever thought about, it’s just reflecting data and popular connection others have already inferred.

        I think people tend to drape machine learning in the ornamentation of human consciousness, but it’s just buying into your own marketing. I think it’s great for pattern recognition, but to think it’s going to create meaningful art that isn’t just plagiarism is naive. Just as naive as to think that it’s possible to be a tool of leftist ideology .

        It’s what the capitalist have wanted since slavery became illegal, a worker that they don’t have to pay that can ape a human like connectivity. How are the workers going to seize the means of production if the workers can literally be programmed?

        • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s what the capitalist have wanted since slavery became illegal, a worker that they don’t have to pay that can ape a human like connectivity. How are the workers going to seize the means of production if the workers can literally be programmed?

          What would you need to “seize” if the models are open source and purely software? You need some machines, but GPUs are cheap compared to industrial equipment. That precise battle has been won without ever being fought.

          • TranscendentalEmpire
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            What would you need to “seize” if the models are open source and purely software?

            That’s my entire point… they are attempting to replace writers, who are currently the producers of the wealth in the current industry. By going on strike they can collectively demand more control of how the profit is distributed.

            That precise battle has been won without ever being fought.

            How have you won anything? You just theoretically erased thousands of jobs. You aren’t replacing the logistical system required to profit from the writing, you aren’t doing anything for the worker class but stealing food from their mouths.

            How does replacing workers with machines equate to a leftist win? We’ve automated tons of industries, how has that worked out for the worker or unions?

            • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Simple: we need to move towards a post-labor society and have some form of universal basic income.

              I think that big studios are on a timer. Generative AI for videos is getting better and better and manages to follow a script now. In 5 years, you won’t shoot movies anymore, you will generate them and it will stop being a business, it will get back to being an art form and a culture unhindered with the copyright silliness that wasted the cultural output of the last century.

              Yes, the very people immediately replaced by AIs are going to suffer. Note however an interesting fact: this was an unintentional side effect of the tech. AI was not developed by big studios with the aim of displacing writers (such a proposal would have been laughable 2 years ago). Just like 2D artists and soon 3D artists and an increasing number of webdevs, this is just a set of skills that suddenly became available in improving models.

              I understand their anger, but their strike is a losing proposition and people who promoting it are selling them false hope. More jobs will be replaced that way (we all thought truck drivers would go away before artists though), we need to prepare for this transition.

              What we need to defend is our income, not our job. Society will need less and less jobs. We can let capitalism reorganize it blindly through the genocidal hand of market or we can understand the causes of the change and shape it into the type of society we want.

              • TranscendentalEmpire
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Simple: we need to move towards a post-labor society and have some form of universal basic income.

                Lol, how do we do that? Since we’re clearly not anywhere close to that, how does this theoretical help us? Are we going to stop capitalist from utilizing AI to replace workers until we’re a post scarcity society?

                think that big studios are on a timer. Generative AI for videos is getting better and better and manages to follow a script now. In 5 years, you won’t shoot movies anymore, you will generate them and it will stop being a business, it will get back to being an art form and a culture unhindered with the copyright silliness that wasted the cultural output of the last century.

                I think that’s a tremendously naive sentiment… First of all, I don’t think there’s anyone in AI that believes it will replace multimillion dollar film industries in 5 years. Secondly, I think it’s silly to believe people won’t find a way to capitalize automated labour to the detriment of the working class.

                understand their anger, but their strike is a losing proposition and people who promoting it are selling them false hope. More jobs will be replaced that way (we all thought truck drivers would go away before artists though), we need to prepare for this transition.

                Lol, you really think that AI is creating art that is sellable? It can barely put together a comprehensible short article. Even in theory, it’s not creating anything new, it’s just IP theft.

                What we need to defend is our income, not our job. Society will need less and less jobs. We can let capitalism reorganize it blindly through the genocidal hand of market or we can understand the causes of the change and shape it into the type of society we want.

                I think you are misunderstanding that we don’t really have a say in any of that unless we have a say over the means of production. Capitalist don’t care about what’s good for the people, they care about their portfolios. The only progress we make we create by strangling the means of production from them. If you don’t have leverage over the controlling class, they don’t care about you.

                Your ideological statements lead me to believe that you are conflating leftism with effective altruism. Which is basically what all tech bros have adopted as a means to justify their self proclaims egalitarianism while also making billions. You can’t use technology to circumvent supporting labour movements.

                • keepthepace@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ah yes, proletariat revolution first, then every problem will be solved by the wisdom of the working class. I know this meme.

                  Assuming you live in the US good luck in a country where the biggest mob waves the confederacy flag and where actual left-wing parties are almost inexistant.

                  There will be a majority in favor of basic income before there is enough support for the proletariat revolution. And I make the same statement in France where riots are frequent, antifa groups actually exist, and there are openly revolutionary organizations.

                  I have now known 3 generations that wait for the Grand Soir. In the meantime, pragmatic people who contribute to the cooperative economy create post-capitalist pockets right now and open source movements are the biggest post-scarcity experiment out there. But yeah, just dismiss that as siliconvalley tech-broism. We had campaigns called “degooglising the net” but surely it must mean we are in bed with the GAFAM.

                  You can’t use technology to circumvent supporting labour movements.

                  What does this even mean? Arguing that workers should receive income even where their job is automated is not support? What do you want exactly? That we pretend that automatable jobs are not? That we force ourselves to carve bullshit jobs to justify our rights to exist?

                  • TranscendentalEmpire
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    yes, proletariat revolution first, then every problem will be solved by the wisdom of the working class. I know this meme.

                    Lol, do you think the people in power will just decide to give up power and allow us to enter post scarcity without a fight?

                    Assuming you live in the US good luck in a country where the biggest mob waves the confederacy flag and where actual left-wing parties are almost inexistant.

                    And what makes you assume that these are the conditions to automatically transition to a post scarcity society?

                    There will be a majority in favor of basic income before there is enough support for the proletariat revolution. And I make the same statement in France where riots are frequent, antifa groups actually exist, and there are openly revolutionary organizations.

                    Do you honestly think capitalist governments care what a majority of people want?

                    In the meantime, pragmatic people who contribute to the cooperative economy create post-capitalist pockets right now and open source

                    My dude, how are you claiming that it’s a post-capitalist pocket? Unless these open source companies are being run by a single guy, or have organized their businesses as a workers collective… you’re still participating in capitalism. The only difference is the way you license your service.

                    But yeah, just dismiss that as siliconvalley tech-broism. We had campaigns called “degooglising the net” but surely it must mean we are in bed with the GAFAM.

                    Ahh so competiting with Google is now leftism…

                    Arguing that workers should receive income even where their job is automated is not support?

                    No… emphatically no. You are arguing that workers should receive a universal income, not that workers will receive a universal income. What you are arguing will happen is that they will loose their jobs. You get to do what you want, and then people loose their jobs, then you get to claim, “we’ll, I said they should get a universal income”.

                    You can’t just automate a small aspect of the economy and expect economic and governmental hierarchical structures that are a hundred years old to change over night. Just because we have the ability to enter post scarcity, doesn’t mean that we will. We produce more than enough food to feed the world, we still choose to allow people to starve.

                    Your definition of post capitalism, is just capitalism with less IP control. It’s not changing what class controls the means of production, which means it’s still capitalism.