r/LeftistsForAI

At its core, the panic is fundamentally the same:

A bunch of people getting riled up to hate a technology that they don't even remotely understand:

Repeating talking points from other people who also don't understand the technology (or do understand it, but are motivated to mislead for their own benefit), culminating in calls to destroy vital infrastructure that, again, they fundamentally don't understand -- Whether that be 5G towers, or data centres (which let's remember, do A LOT more than AI stuff. Data centres are where all cloud storage lives, including posts, photos and videos from various platforms).

AI hysteria may be more widespread (or at least, more visible), but that's only because anti-AI bias was already preloaded into our culture, allowing it to gain a foothold where the far more obscure 5G simply couldn't.

5G was also just an upgrade to a technology most people were already using, so there were far fewer unknowns to exploit. AI, meanwhile, is a fundamental paradigm shift that is utterly alien to most people, leaving more people vulnerable to fear and anger against it.

I've also encountered former anti-AI people who have admitted that, because they didn't like how AI looked aesthetically (especially in the early days), they were predisposed to listening to anti-AI voices to reinforce their initial gut reaction. This, I believe, is also a large factor in anti-AI sentiment being more widespread than anti-5G was at its peak.

Regardless, it all stems from a shared gut reaction spinning out into confirmation bias and amplified by the rampant spread of misinformation.

And yes, there is a certain irony in how widespread anti-AI narratives have become, when the spread of misinformation is one of the core fears about AI. Not an invalid one either, but it shows that we never needed AI to convince large groups of people of things that are fundamentally not true (or otherwise, misleading or reductive).

I have also seen it on other threads about this particular video. Anti-AI people don't want to be associated with this person because they came off badly, so they are claiming she/they are AI.

I found the original video, and the person is definitely real. They don't regularly post about AI, either. They generally promote the hair salon where they work.

It's not okay the way people talk about it and a lot of the discourse is ableist. It needs to become an official assistive technology and until then everyone will still feel the need to guilt others about how they receive support from it in very real ways. There are many studies about how it helps and no one talks about that.

All the time online I see people say things like they have dyslexia and AI helps them a lot, or autism or anxiety or whatever and AI serves as a specific, cheap, patient accessibility tool. But then they will clarify that they know it's bad and need to move on but dont know how, and everyone gives them the most lackluster advice that is expensive, complicated, hard to get. Like no! You don't need to feel bad! Just use what helps you. I get so tired of the misconceptions and how people spread all kinds of narratives to dissuade others from using it, not even knowing what they're talking about. There are real issues too that have more to do with the behavior and power of actual companies, but shaming others is not the way to solve things.

I think that the relation between Leftism and Transhumanism is worth looking into. The problems Leftists have with AI are the same problems with Transhumanism: who controls the technologies and how their benefits are distributed.

Some Transhumanist technologies that should be of interest for Leftists are medicines that could cure or prevent diseases, prosthetics restoring lost abilities, cognitive technologies improving access to learning, advanced robotics reducing working time and organ replacement.

I think the potential for expanding healthcare, reducing exploitation and empowering people is great with Transhumanism.

The limit of what is possible for humanity has progressed a lot. We can easily think of how our communication methods have changed and how they changed us in return. It is clear that when we create new technology, humans live differently.

Let's not think our current way of living is the best. Enhancing our abilities beyond what is possible now might be the most radical way of progress.

For the common colloquial usage of AI, what do y'all use generative models for?
My own experience is coding agents almost exclusively, though I have interest in specific use cases of Machine Learning models?
Is there any fine tuning of models and interesting helpful use cases around politics?

Right now, the US power grid is struggling to keep up with this record heat as millions of homes turn on personal AC units. Data centers are further burdening the load on the grid, despite the fact that rolling blackouts are nothing new. This is a real problem, but it’s not a feasibility issue. Data centers could be part of the solution. 

Data Centers can contribute to the grid in three key ways. The first is grid disconnection. Data centers have large internal batteries that are typically activated in the event of a blackout, so they can continue operating after disconnecting from the grid during peak demands. They should immediately disconnect during moments like this. 

The second way is grid-reciprocity. New data centers have large internal batteries that allow them to operate during disconnection. A reciprocity agreement means the data center returns excess energy back to the grid during extreme events like this heat wave, rather than reserving that energy for their own operation. However, this needs to be negotiated with the community via a Conditional Use Permit. More on that in a second. 

The last way is renewable generation infrastructure that is owned by the community, already returning energy back to the grid. Data centers offer a unique ability to store and direct energy, a capability our grid currently lacks. This also places the community with leverage over future decision making in regards to the future of AI, if they own the infrastructure these companies rely on. And here’s how this is not just wishful thinking, but enforceable. 

When a city has data centers classified as ‘conditional use,’ they require approval through a Conditional Use Permit. This agreement has a Public Benefit Agreement attached, which contains the community’s asks and is enforceable via the permit. Tech companies are desperate for the land, utilities, and subsidies communities control. Through the CUP, communities can negotiate for not just clean construction, but publicly owned renewable energy infrastructure. This agreement is the difference between a data center moving to a less organized community with no input, and a community capturing waste heat to thousands of surrounding homes and schools. It’s a political issue, not a feasibility issue.

The data center cancellations are proof of the organizing force we’re capable of, we just need to turn a ‘no’ into a sharper negotiation. Happy to discuss more in the comments if anyone’s interested, and also genuinely looking for pushback on where I can strengthen this argument.

To preface, I'm kind of a mixed bag on AI, on the one hand I totally hate the environmental and human impact (datacenters increasing electricity prices in surrounding areas, etc) of AI as well as the fact that I just don't think AI art other than a few specific use cases is really valid or should be treated as valuable. However, from the perspective of a tool, especially for learning and perhaps in business as well, it can be very useful and I'm not really against that use at all.

All that is to say, regardless of my or your or anyone's personal beliefs about AI, I just wanted to say from an objective meta perspective, I think this sub really has the right idea when it comes to discourse. I've been to some of the other AI and AI adjacent subs and there's a lot of vitriol from both sides on them (I will admit, I've thrown down in the mud myself and been quite rude at times too), so for whatever a strangers opinion is worth, I think this sub is a really good example of unifying people, even though they might have different opinions, and trying to harbor genuine and constructive discussions.

Good on you guys, you've honestly warmed me up and made me reconsider my own attitudes towards AI discourse. More places like this should exist on the internet.

Dissent is true patriotism. Those who strive for a better world instead of more of the same are the only ones who prove their values, instead of just perform them.

Here's a video I made for my song Welcome to the Boring Dystopia. Whether you're blasting fireworks or blasting digital avatars, make sure to blast this too.

Tell the world how you really feel about Capitalism.

Do you agree that the purpose of a system is what it does? That’s Stafford Beer’s foundational systems theory axiom (often abbreviated as POSIWID). It asserts that a system's true function is defined by its actual, measurable outcomes, not by its intended goals or stated mission.

Carsie’s satirical take is:

lyrics
Sometimes
I wake up at night in a cold sweat
Feelin like a damn fool
In spite
Of everyone’s good intentions
The world is so damn cruel!

Now I see
how all of it can be confusing
but it isn’t that bad!
Could it be
the problem’s the logic you’re using
making you feel sad

It’s simpler than you might think because
The purpose of a system is what it does
The purpose of a system is what it does

My phone is a system
That makes me stupid and mean
With a screen
To sell data and advertising

My school is a system
For charging exorbitant fees
So that teens
get degrees in extinct industries

It’s simpler than you might think because
The purpose of a system is what it does
The purpose of a system is what it does

The news is a system
To make me think
That the things that I think
Are the same things that everyone thinks

A bank is a system
That borrows money from me
Interest free
To invest in an oil company

It’s simpler than you might think because
The purpose of a system is what it does
The purpose of a system is what it does

The law is a system
To make me think I have rights
Cus I’m white and well-funded
and don’t try to fight

Elections are systems
To make you think that you chose
To impose
All the dreams of a few CEOs

It’s simpler than you might think because
The purpose of a system is what it does
The purpose of a system is what it does

The army’s a system
extorting the poor into
killing the poor
To get mortgages they can afford

NATO is a system
For starting a war
And then selling protection
so holdings of Raytheon soar

It’s simpler than you might think because
The purpose of a system is what it does
The purpose of a system is what it does

I would love to hear your perspectives on this.

I have heard the argument that the issues with AI are largely issues with capitalism and not AI itself. I don't think this is an entirely bad argument, and I myself struggle between boycotting it and thinking that we should instead be involved so we can influence the how its used.

But the thing I can't get around is that even if AI would be great in the hands of better leadership, it is simply not. And as it is, it will be and is being used for terrible things and is making it possible for a horrible agenda to be put forth. We have things like propaganda, mass misinformation, surveillance, job displacement, etc.

What is the argument for supporting AI right now? While it IS controlled by far right crazy rich people? Shouldn't we stop them from having AI by not supporting it until it is in better hands?

Like.. sure, AI could be great if instead of being used to fire most people it was used to bring about 4 or even 3 day work weeks, or more vacation time, or universal income, etc.

But its simply not going to be used like that.

I don't think the capitalist based issues are the only problems, but just looking for some viewpoints on this particular thing for now. Would love to hear what y'all think

Running open-source models locally on consumer hardware is a direct, material application of Leftist principles to modern tech. Leftism doesn't hate technology; it hates the concentration of capital. The cloud monopolies want us dependent on massive, corporate supercomputers. This creates a hyper-centralized choke point where a handful of oligarchs dictate the terms of digital labour, boggart proprietary guardrails, and rent-seek indefinitely.

When you run a model locally, you reject the pipeline. Local compute is digital sovereignty. It democratizes parsing of the world's information, cuts out middlemen, and ensures utility of technology stays with the user instead of feeding a billionaire's proprietary dataset.

AI on personal hardware in your own home creates a framework focused entirely on worker autonomy over corporate efficiency. These tools ought to be owned by the people running them, operated on our own terms, and deployed to support worker agency rather than replace it.

The AI conversation is usually framed as a fight between two camps. One says AI is going to wreck everything: jobs, truth, kids, democracy. The other says it'll fix everything: cure disease, tutor every child, unlock abundance. They can't stand each other.

My view is that they're the same position wearing different clothes. Both treat the outcome as a property of the technology, something the tech will do to us, that we're now just waiting to find out. They argue about the verdict and quietly share the premise: that it isn't up to us.

I think that premise is false, and it's the actual problem. Whether AI turns out good or bad isn't a forecast to win an argument about. It's a function of choices that have owners: which uses we build, who they serve, what we regulate, what we refuse to automate even when we could. A hammer isn't good or bad. Neither is a model. The variable was never the tool.

Here's why it matters: the moment you accept the good-or-bad frame, from either side, you've cast yourself as a spectator of something you could be steering. Optimism and pessimism both become excuses not to decide.

What would change my view: show me that AI genuinely is different from every prior general-purpose technology, such that its consequences are baked into the tech and not into human deployment. Or point me to a doomer or an optimist whose framing actually moved people to make better choices, instead of to sit back and wait to be proven right.