On 7/17/25 5:22, Jean Louis wrote: * Aaron Wolf [1]<[email protected]> [2025-07-16 17:03]:
Jean, zero of this is responding to the article I linked which I imagine you didn't read. Yes, my summary was exaggerated and simplistic because I was just trying to make the point in a direction and emphasize the linked article. Read the article. I appreciate some of Doctorow’s concerns about AI potentially undermining human autonomy and the sustainability of AI investments, but honestly, I’m not a fan of sweeping generalizations—especially when no concrete examples are provided. From what I see in actual studies and within the developer community, the opposite is true: AI tools are actively helping people work smarter and fostering innovation. The impact of AI is complex and nuanced, and if we engage with it thoughtfully, we can overcome the challenges and really harness its benefits—without throwing the whole thing under the bus. I don't know what you mean "no concrete examples". He specifically describes cases like the single writer tasked with writing 30 "summer guides" in a short time and thus forced to rely on AI to do it. Cory never once suggested that AI isn't productive or can't be productive. He explicitly says that it *can* be, just as improvements to mechanized loom technology was productive for textile work. None of this, not me or Cory, denies anything about the productive *capacity* of AI. The issue is in how it gets actually used. Cory lays out with specific historical examples the assertion that technology is often first used to reduce the leverage that workers have — and then after some time as the technology advances, it gets more and more toward actually improved products. And neither he nor I were saying that AI is bad or should be rejected. The points are entirely about how it gets used in practice. Obviously a cooperative tech company (where the programmers are the owners) are only going to use AI in productive ways, i.e. the "centaur" approach. It's the exploitive companies that do the unhealthy reverse-centaur approach. And the reason I brought this up was in response to concerns about how AI is getting pushed into things and funded so extremely. The reason for that is because of the leverage and profit it can bring to the investors and owners of big corporations. Yes, at the same time there are productive things happening in AI that are just interesting, but that on its own would not be seeing the level of investment and energy use that we see now. If workers themselves find ways to use a technology to enhance their work, that's great. And if their work goes better and they get to do less of the tedious stuff and more of the most meaningful work, that's superb. That's the centaur scenario. Again, nobody is denying that scenario. The question is how AI gets used. It's not inevitably healthy or unhealthy. But if you believe that the investors and bosses in our corporate system are generally trustworthy to make choices that are healthy for the world, then you and I have a very different view of things. I'd be willing to discuss the actual points Cory is making if you actually want to deal with them. References 1. mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
