Nah, it wouldn’t save me any effort. I know exactly what I want to say, and trying to twist a chatbot into saying what I want it to would be more effort.
Not true either. AI has some use cases, but it isn’t an omni-applicable tech either. This binary, either-or, black/white thinking of yours is heavily idealist in nature.
I actually have, AI generated photos can take similar roles as stock photos, or other such visual imagery valued more for its informational basis than artistic. There are other uses.
But they don’t do the same thing, because one is an image of reality and the other is the output of a stochastic process. One is communicating something, the other is effectively a typed sentence with a whole bunch of noise attached
It has little to no effect on the outcome, in this hypothetical. The way the conclusion came to be is different, but are you making an argument that the outcome is different on the ideal plane or something?
False consiousness is about misinterpreting reality, it isn’t a synonym of AI. False consciousness is a human condition, when humans, for example, accept idealist analysis rather than dialectical materialist. These are not at all the same subject, and, ironically, you are closer to displaying false consciousness by trying to link it to AI than AI is to false consciousness.
Tools have different social functions in different modes of production. A hammer in the hands of a yeoman does not alienate them from the product of their labor, but a hammer that is owned by a capitalist alienates the proletarian from the product of their labor. The hammer didn’t change, its social role did.
Nah, it wouldn’t save me any effort. I know exactly what I want to say, and trying to twist a chatbot into saying what I want it to would be more effort.
Interesting so it doesn’t really automate anything then
Not true either. AI has some use cases, but it isn’t an omni-applicable tech either. This binary, either-or, black/white thinking of yours is heavily idealist in nature.
Also I note that you never name these use cases, do they exist in reality or on some ideal plane
I actually have, AI generated photos can take similar roles as stock photos, or other such visual imagery valued more for its informational basis than artistic. There are other uses.
But they don’t do the same thing, because one is an image of reality and the other is the output of a stochastic process. One is communicating something, the other is effectively a typed sentence with a whole bunch of noise attached
If you couldn’t tell the difference between the two, in what manner is the utility different?
That is entirely hypothetical, but i will go along with your thought experiment:
It makes a difference to the person using the AI system. The two situations are materially different. How can that not have an effect?
It has little to no effect on the outcome, in this hypothetical. The way the conclusion came to be is different, but are you making an argument that the outcome is different on the ideal plane or something?
The name is a synonym for “false consciousness” and you’re out here defending it
False consiousness is about misinterpreting reality, it isn’t a synonym of AI. False consciousness is a human condition, when humans, for example, accept idealist analysis rather than dialectical materialist. These are not at all the same subject, and, ironically, you are closer to displaying false consciousness by trying to link it to AI than AI is to false consciousness.
Ya, asbestos has “some use cases” but only gives you lung cancer under capitalism
Asbestos is not AI, a frog is not a squirrel. This is silly.
This is a post in ShittyAskLemmy fyi
Yea I know, but you clearly made it after making an AskLemmy post.
So reply seriously there, then
Asbestos is not a tool.
Sure it is, it transforms buildings into costly abatement invoices
“Tools are always neutral and a process has no impact on the person performing the process” <— you, definitely not doing black and white thknking
Tools have different social functions in different modes of production. A hammer in the hands of a yeoman does not alienate them from the product of their labor, but a hammer that is owned by a capitalist alienates the proletarian from the product of their labor. The hammer didn’t change, its social role did.
Ah but you twisted my words there. I said a process in the second half of the sentence.
Yes, you said process. I fail to see what you’re accomplishing in calling a program a process vs a tool.