Thank you for taking your valuable time away from huffing gas to grace us all with your insights.

Incidentally, Asimov wrote a great review of 1984 basically calling Orwell an emotionally stunted manchild who wrote a tantrum disguised as a novel. Orwell was a guilt ridden rich kid who played hippie in the slums then got his feelings hurt in Spain and spent the rest of his life writing revenge fantasies against Stalin instead of actually trying to understand how the world works.

1984 was just boring and lifeless rant where nothing happens, and the technology is nonsensical like having humans watch every citizen on camera instead of just using computers which even Asimov in the 1980s could see was laughably inefficient. Orwell couldn’t imagine women as anything but brainless sex objects or proles as anything but subhuman animals and he thought ballpoint pens were worse than actual scratching steel nibs. The guy was a technophobic elitist with zero forward vision who projected his personal grudge onto the future and millions of people treat his little hissy fit like prophecy. It’s frankly incredible that his shallow writing became a cultural icon in the west.

https://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

Literally nobody here says that China is perfect or that there aren’t bad things about China. The reality is that no human society is perfect, but ones not run by pedo kleptocrats are objectively better than ones that are.

seems like the person regurgitating propaganda lines out of context may in fact be the one with the brain rot

Just a day ago, a senior Anthropic executive claimed the U.S. still held a 6 to 9 month lead in frontier AI models, while calling Chinese model distillation adversarial. One day later, Moonshot’s Kimi K3 beat Claude Fable 5 on Frontend Code Arena. And the funniest part is that it is an open weight model.

So the whole 6 to9 month lead lasted about 24 hours. 🤣

https://hai.stanford.edu/news/inside-the-ai-index-12-takeaways-from-the-2026-report

lol all the comments are literally just you and the other troll, you two should get a room

If people can’t follow a simple 4 panel comic, then the problem exists firmly between the chair and the keyboard. Also, pretty clear from the upvotes that anybody with even a minimally functional brain got what the comic was saying.

Oh yeah forgot about limewire. :) And I’ve been noticing the same trend, a lot of people don’t really know how to torrent things anymore. It really is a strictly superior user experience. Once you have a file then nobody can take it away from you, it doesn’t expire, you can play it on whatever device you want whenever you want. The fact that people accept streaming along with all the limitations is really crazy to me. Even outside the question of cost, it’s just a shittier overall experience.

I am talking about interrogating the implications of the present world we live in. What I was pointing out is that the author makes a shallow analysis of the symptoms without following the threads to identify the root causes. You don’t need to be a philosopher to do that.

I’m also not talking about an alternative history where AI might’ve emerged in a different form. I was pointing out the underlying causes of the negative effects associated with how this technology is used, and we need to be clear on that in order to do anything about the problem. The issue is capitalist control, and the solution is to develop this technology under public ownership the same way other open source technology is developed. Open alternatives from China are already the biggest threat to the whole model, so this is already starting to happen.

I think people who are opposed to the way this tech is used should be thinking of how to wrestle it away from corporations, and to build it in the open. This is the whole concept behind having ownership of the means of production. In my opinion, that’s the only realistic solution to the problem in the long term.

Napster and Gnutella were the ones I used back in the day. All my music is still in mp3s today, and I’ve never had a single reason to regret not using streaming services so far.

Thanks, glad these posts brighten up your day. I find reading Chinese news is just such a huge contrast because it tends to be very positive in nature. You just keep seeing all these amazing developments happening, and you realize everything’s not so bad in the grand scheme of things. Also hopeful that the empire doesn’t start a nuclear holocaust and just fades away into obscurity.

truly the the best possible outcomes on both accounts

The analysis in the post remains firmly at the level of phenomena, failing to address the fundamental contradiction of the capitalist mode of production. The blog post correctly points out that tools are not neutral since they shape people and social relations. All tools are material manifestations of specific production relations. However, the blog post treats AI as a tool or technology itself, failing to question why AI exists in this specific form at the current historical stage. The reason there is a tendency towards large scale models which are centralized and commercialized is that they are an inevitable product of the logic of capitalist accumulation.

From the perspective of the base and the superstructure, after the highly developed capitalist productive forces, capital urgently needs a new means to accelerate circulation, reduce labor costs, and open up new areas of accumulation. So, the inefficiency and high energy consumption of AI are not technological defects, but rather a price that capital is forced to pay under specific historical conditions because true efficiency in form of distributed, open-source, and democratized AI cannot serve the maximization of monopoly profits. The waste, environmental damage, and ethical crisis of the AI ​​industry are essentially inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. The problem stems directly from the contradiction between social production and private ownership.

The post also discusses the idea of tools shaping people, but fails to clearly distinguish the different shaping forces of use value and exchange value on technological development. Under capitalism, AI primarily serves the needs of capital accumulation rather than the comprehensive development of a society. The whole AI makes humans stop thinking and stop creating argument is just describing the deepening of capitalist labor alienation in the digital age where workers are alienated from creative labour. The push to replace rather than enhance human capabilities is driven by the need for replaceable, standardized labor, rather than independent thinking subjects.

Merely demanding rational use or ethical norms without addressing the private ownership of the means of production can only alleviate symptoms while doing nothing to address the root cause. The laws and ethics of capitalist society are themselves part of the superstructure and their fundamental function is to safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie. As long as the means of production remain in the hands of a few monopolistic capitalists, any calls for ethical use are just empty moralizing.

Finally, it’s worth noting that there is little room for letting us do what machines cannot do like appreciating predecessors and fighting for policy within the capitalist framework because such behaviors are systematically marginalized. True liberation lies in breaking down the social relations that determine the direction of technological development. The goal has to be to move the development of AI from serving capital accumulation to serving the free and comprehensive development of humanity.

The core problem with the critique in the blog post is that while it is emotionally charged, it fails to rise to the level of a systematic analysis of the capitalist mode of production. Merely calling for critical use or humanistic concern is insufficient because it is essential to understand the relations of production in order to see past the illusion of tools controlling people.

As strong a rebuttal as a parrot requires. I also love how you lump together a whole bunch of issues inherent in capitalism in your complaint further illustrating that you’re not able to put together a coherent argument.

best of luck with that

I feel like people parroting these tropes uncritically are the ones who should be worried about their own cognitive decline.

Exactly, the argument that whether the code was written entirely by hand or produced by an LLM is the wrong thing to focus on. To see why, we have to consider how software development actually works at scale.

There’s a view that code written by hand has to be more intentional, almost has to be by definition since it requires the maintainer to actually put it in there themselves. That’s, of course, true but once a project grows past a certain size or it has multiple maintainers, nobody really has the totality of the code in their heads. So, any new code that’s added is always done with limited understanding. Code being written by hand should not be equated with it expressing the intent faithfully; if that were the case, then we’d never have software bugs. Humans make mistakes all the time as is clearly evidenced by there being no lack of buggy code predating LLM use.

I’m also not intimately familiar with most of the code in the projects I’ve been maintaining over the years. Any code I’ve written even a few months ago might as well have been written by someone else. When I need to make changes, I read through the code and figure out what it’s doing, and I rely on the test harness to make sure I don’t introduce regressions.

It’s simply not feasible for humans to keep the entirety of large projects in their heads all at once. When you’re working on a project, you’re constantly forgetting and relearning code as you go. And the situation is even worse for projects where multiple people work together where nobody knows what everyone else was thinking. We look at the code and try to build up sufficient context in our heads to make the necessary changes. When we misjudge that context or misunderstand existing code, then we end up making mistakes.

The way we judge whether projects are actually solid is by the level of specification and testing they have, the experience of the developers, and amount of usage they see in the wild. All of these same tools work just as well with LLM generated code as they do with code written by hand.

Farming out design decisions to the LLM without reviewing the output or doing proper testing will almost certainly produce low quality code, but that is no different from somebody just slapping some code together to make a kludge rather than really thinking through a problem. Working with LLMs does not mean farming out your thinking to the machine. What these tools actually do is automate the mechanical aspect of producing the code. Once it is written, you can read it, understand it, and change it as you would with any other code.

Yup, and as you mentioned in another comment, this tech is being marketed as something that it’s not because companies pushing it want to convince other companies that it will replace human labor.