[cmrdporcupine]

Blunt purity tests administered by people with reductionist and categorical thinking.

The reality is that even tools produced by concentrated capital and mass appropriation can also increase the productive capacity of a small free-software project whose code remains available under copyleft. They're not "infected" and contagious. They're tools.

They can deskill and dispossess workers; they can extend what a particular worker is able to make. Which tendency dominates, under what conditions, and to whose benefit are material questions.

"AI bad" is not an answer to them, any more than tech-bro "innovation good" is.

[joepie91_]

> Which tendency dominates, under what conditions, and to whose benefit are material questions.

Close, but not quite. They are political questions. And crucially, political questions to which we already know the answer in the current sociopolitical environment: it displaces workers, because the balance of power is very heavily tilted towards the wealthy.

This is precisely why people oppose AI.

[cmrdporcupine]

I think you didn't actually read what I wrote. Or you chose to ignore the point.

Saying one "opposes AI" itself is already broad stroke categorical thinking. Starting from purported essences rather than on the ground situations.

It's just moralistic thinking that hides details and accomplishes nothing. And pointless. Mechanization happens whether you like it or not. It's not mechanization or the machine one should be purposefully organizing against. It's the way it's used. Or you'll just lose.

I personally can't think of a better use of an AI "agentic tool" than to write copyleft free software. I'll rightfully "steal" back what they unethically stole, thank you very much.

"You touched the tool and are therefore contaminated and all you touched is contaminated" is what I see in the threads, and it's not just wrong it's tactically stupid.