lmao Jackson wasn’t some kind of Uebermensch. He was abusive because his position protected him. A bullet isn’t going to glance off his iron jaw or something.

And he won’t get dumped on by the GOP because I will be gleefully shooting him in the head a few minutes into his reexistence.

LA liberals are some of the most vicious and dehumanizing. See their approach towards homeless people.

“Tankies” is just “pinkos” and “commies”, words that are not really offensive or describe anything actually bad but challenge the chauvinist and reactionary positions of liberals.

Lemmy is tankie because it’s cool. You should try to be as cool as us.

The national guard was used against BLM protesters in 2020. I would suspect that this is meant to use the military to carry out specific reactionary actions, e.g. a new rash of deportations, casting a wide net. I think it would be more this kind of thing thsn curfews and military police interactions every day.

This would be, of course, horrific.

Andrew Jackson would probably be happy that the US genocide of indigenous people was so extensive and the country was so large. And upset at how many people living there semi-equally weren’t white.

He’d think those things for the few minutes before I shot him.

They lose the most status under current social changes and are therefore a vulnerable demographic for reactionary propaganda. And there’s plenty of reactionary propaganda for them to plug into and very little focused on them that runs counter to it, let alone gets promoted by social media companies. Reactionary forces are just doing good marketing, basically. It’s also not like everyone else is getting a great political education or has coherent beliefs in liberation or humanism, they just aren’t the status gaining group on which this propaganda works, they’re the groups scapegoated by reaction and when alienated will naturally oppose their bullies.

It is completely uncomparable to those atrocities

The poles:

• The ignorant and propagandized, yet somehow confident. Please note that you have not done further investigation or acknowledged the experiences of people who have been to or live in Xinjiang.

• Those who do investigation and recognize the pattern of poor sourcing, US or AU gov funding of outlets, fake governments in exile, fake universities.

I will offer a few critiques.

The first is that “AI”, which is really LLMs and more advanced CNNs, is oversold as a technology and does not deliver what is promised. It can make a 90% as good stocj image, sure, but it does not code well. For coding, at best, it functions as a template creator that often makes mistakes. And it does not do the actually important part of coding, which is conceptualizing and solving the challenges of the actual problem domain. This is because all it can really do is regurgitate patterns based on patternes inputs. There is not any actual understanding underneath it. In this sense, it is a parlor trick compared to what the concept of actual AI evokes. We are essentially in a tech bubble phase of overpromising and overinvestment by two camps of capital: one that buys the hype as a technology and wants to get ahead of “the curve” to cut costs (your example of automation under capitalism) and the cynical crowd that understands its limits but uses it anyways to discipline labor. Large companies already wanted to do layoffs, this just provides an excuse. And it’s just that: an excuse, not really much of a variable cost capital saver for capitalists. Its best corporate use is by workers to help them craft diplomatic emails to unreasonable managers. Or maybe the 90%-as-good stock images thing.

The second critique is of the enclosure of “AI”, which amounts to capitalist enclosure of publicly funded research combined with vast swaths of data from all sources. These large models require substantial up-front capital investment. They are like building a power plant: to democratize it, you need democratic control over their production, not just a free output that can run on consumer hardware. “AI” companies spend huge amounts on scraping data and training their models, two things that “the consumer” does not experience in use value and arguably does not see in value, either, as with other Silicon Valley tech schemes this bubble is fueled by financial capital pumping companies up in the hopes of getting in on monopolies later. Like with Uber being convenient and cheap for the first few years and now being much more expensive, these companies undercharge and take losses now in the hopes of gainjng “marketshare”. The likely outcome if American “AI” took off in isolation would be 2-3 big companies controlling the entire process and selling an exoensive sunscription, its expense depending on whether they killed off the non-“AI” competition or not. For example, stock image generation prices would be kept below Getty stock image prices right up until they killed the actually-photos market, at which point they would charge whatever they wanted, having skipped ahead to the monopoly phase of pricing. And they would not make the models free or open source, they would use their positions to crush all such endeavors and make them illegal. The only hope there is a country like China, who could nationalize the production of these models and direct their production to be towards lower power and free/open end use. You can see this dynsmic already and the threat it poses for US “AI” companies in their response to DeepSeek: they are trying to get it and all Chinese “AI” banned under claims of national security and intellectual property. This is just their response to a lower power LLM produced by a private group, which highlights their mechanism of enclosure is the high capital barrier to entry. You mention this, but I want to emphasize that it is the entire game.

I do also want to note that part of the hype is itself disrespectful to artists. As it exists, most “AI” visual productions are a fun parlor trick but not actually good enough to even convince people they are part of, say, a narrative work you would want to personally enjoy, let alone pay for. There is a lot of “searching for the niche” where people are taking what it is already almost convincing at reproducing and trying to shoehorn it in simply because it’s “AI” and cheaper than hiring artists, not because anyone actually prefers it (or doesn’t notice it) aesthetically. We kind of all feel the vibes of an “AI” generated image, let alone movie. When they have to form a narrative structure with consistent character designs and a sense of place, with unique scenarios, it currently all falls apart outside of a few highly skilled individuals that can work these systems (even then you can always recognize it as “AI”). So in this context, think about what it means to artists when people around them say “AI” slop is just as good as their work, or good enough to do the job. I mean, we all know it isn’t either of those things. 99% of the time it’s slop and it doesn’t make any interesting creative “decisions” (it literally can’t). So it is really, in these cases, a way to demean the value of art and artists by exaggerating the value of “AI” “art” to equate them, even on the aesthetic output value.

To summarize: “AI” has silicon valley financial capital dynamics that threaten any open/democratic use, it is oversold, and overselling it does harm to those whose jobs and interests are meant to be displaced per techbro marketing.

With that said, there are entirely valid use cases and situations where it performs very well, usually when highly constrained by heuristic modsls that only use it for a subset of aspects. For example, text-to-speech that relies on “AI” for speech generation and only part of translation but not all of it. In that sense it operates like a traditional technology, though still with high cost capital inputs. Though in this same case, there are many slop examples out there, usually when too much is offloaded to the “AI” models, like auto-translation devices for tourists (they do NOT work well).

Here is a complete list of my crimes and home address: