You indeed taught me a few things. Sure. I’ll stick with organizing and the ground-work though as I was never good with coding or any of the examples shown it has uses in. The work I do has zero relevance to A.I as of now, so that could be to do with that anything to do with A.I still disgusts me despite the points and facts that you have. I guess I’m a luddite in that area. Getting old sucks.
Why is it good for workers to own the means of production asks a self proclaimed Marxist.
I wasn’t arguing against open-source, nor the fact that I am disgracing the technology as completely useless, said more harm than good. I’m saying that it’s going to cause major harm and that having open-source alternatives doesn’t mean you own the technology. But you are correct, I am not focusing on the good that it could do.
Marxists recognize that the problem lies not with the technology itself, but with the relations of production that govern its use. Our goal is not to halt progress, but to seize control of these productive forces and direct them towards emancipatory ends.
I’m still in partial disagreement that open-source alternatives truly will change anything. I’ve seen open-source released before for many products and people still flock over to established products. That could change though and you could very well be right. We shall see in that department. I still don’t think open-source technology means ownership of it. It simply is a relation. I am not railing against open-source. It’s hard to see the good in these things when they affect the neighborhoods you live in.
It’s to understand how these technologies develop productive forces that can eventually serve as the basis for a communist society, and critically, to identify and leverage the contradictions like open-source that arise within capitalism, even if they seem small at the time. Do you see now why simply focusing on the ruling class’s inevitable misuse, without acknowledging the other side of the dialectic, leads to a dead end for Marxist thought?
I suppose we’ll see the uses this technology can have. A.I; not open-source technology.
Look at it this way, when technology developed in the open then there is at least a chance of it being applied in a positive fashion, but if it’s solely in the hands of capitalists then there isn’t even a possibility of that happening. That’s my fundamental argument here.
You indeed taught me a few things. Sure. I’ll stick with organizing and the ground-work though as I was never good with coding or any of the examples shown it has uses in. The work I do has zero relevance to A.I as of now, so that could be to do with that anything to do with A.I still disgusts me despite the points and facts that you have. I guess I’m a luddite in that area. Getting old sucks.
I wasn’t arguing against open-source, nor the fact that I am disgracing the technology as completely useless, said more harm than good. I’m saying that it’s going to cause major harm and that having open-source alternatives doesn’t mean you own the technology. But you are correct, I am not focusing on the good that it could do.
I’m still in partial disagreement that open-source alternatives truly will change anything. I’ve seen open-source released before for many products and people still flock over to established products. That could change though and you could very well be right. We shall see in that department. I still don’t think open-source technology means ownership of it. It simply is a relation. I am not railing against open-source. It’s hard to see the good in these things when they affect the neighborhoods you live in.
I suppose we’ll see the uses this technology can have. A.I; not open-source technology.
Look at it this way, when technology developed in the open then there is at least a chance of it being applied in a positive fashion, but if it’s solely in the hands of capitalists then there isn’t even a possibility of that happening. That’s my fundamental argument here.