Xiisadaddy

Don't wanna be a downer, and I'm not even in the UK, but i feel like maybe this needs to be less specific? Like ok ban cages and crates. Then they'll just find some other small object to put them in won't they? Shouldn't it be like ban keeping them inside of enclosed spaces below a certain size per animal or something like that?

Liberals will be like "The new Syrian government is not a US backed coup!" then read this and think nothing of the US making policy decisions for the Syrian army.

They'll critisize the housing in the former USSR and ignore the tent cities in the USA.

When you look deeply into it you realize how its socialism in general that made it possible too. Like China wouldn't exist as it does today without the early support of the USSR. Also Cuba, the DPRK and Vietnam taking the punishment they did at the hands of the US and WINNING. If Vietnam lost its war China would have been next. That much is a certainty imo. All these socialist nations did what they could, and China's one big advantage was its massive pool of labor. So it became the industrial hub of the world. All those little puzzle pieces laid the groundwork for this. Every socialist movement contributed in its own way. Every strike, every protest, slightly weakened the empire giving China the room it needed to grow. If Unions in the US hadn't been such a big threat, forcing them to make concessions and raise wages, then companies wouldn't have wanted to produce goods overseas instead for example. China has become the vehicle through which the wrath of generations of the global working class will finally slam down upon the capitalist world order. Will finally turn the tables against them.

I think most imagined a more direct conflict, and each nation being turned one at a time. But for the Chinese to have done what they did; Convincing the capitalists to GIVE them the means of production freely. Is mind boggling.

The Sprectre of Communism is an apt phrase. Many of the people who laid the groundwork for this are no longer with us. The seeds they planted though are. Perhaps the Americans were right in fearing communism would spread like dominos falling. Except instead of dominos its a dam finally breaking, and a tidal wave rushing forth the blanket the earth.

I don't disagree with your view on those movements i just think that time runs too short. Like they'd need far too much time to get off the ground to be able to actually prevent the massive ecological and humanitarian disasters that are coming. Which need a lot of productive capacity to combat. And as climate change gets worse, and the west gets more overtly violent building those sorts of things just gets more difficult.

Its just a right time right place situation. China got a lot of the work done already and even places like Vietnam still need more time to get to the point they are at. Time which we really don't have anymore sadly imo.

When considering the difference between how Ultras see things and we do; I think it comes down to something extremely simple. A question.

What is the goal of the socialist movement?

For some reason a lot of people, in the west especially, get very intellectual about this. They think the goal should be strict adherance to a political philosphy. To the teachings and writings of whatever hodgeposh of socialist thinkers they've put together as "the good ones".

When any "real" socialist- that is a socialist actually furthering the cause of socialism/participating in an active communist party -will probably tell you its something along the lines of improving the lives of the greatest number of people by preventing their oppression and exploitation. Its to unite the working class and use that solidarity to push for our own best interests.

So when China does very pragmatic things in order to do the 2nd thing, and protect themselves for the long term it enrages the people who think the first way. They've spent all this time studying theory and learning its ins, and outs. Mostly because their own country is devoid of a real party apparatus to put them to work, and they end up doing that as an outlet for their frustrations instead.

"How dare China come out here, and be super successful while not doing things the way they're supposed to. It can't be "real socialism" because it doesn't look like what i pictured in my head."

That's basically the mindset i think they are stuck in.

It is a very human thing to do. To latch on to something specific and get upset when things don't work out how you wanted exactly. People just need to get over it.

The Chinese are trailblazing for socialism in an era with new technologies no other socialist figures of the past knew about, and with new geopolitical situations nobody 50 years ago could have imagined. They have no choice, but to just make it up as they go. To be pragmatic, and cautious, and do the best they can. Because the stakes are quite literally humanities future.

If China fails there is a pretty good chance we just go extinct sometime in the next few centuries. Even if we don't life won't be good for most people. The entire species fate is literally riding on the Chinese's shoulders. Luckily everything I've seen suggests that the people running the CPC are some of the greatest tactical minds in history.

You seem to be missing the entire point. An artist makes a work, a company takes that work without paying them, feeds it to an AI, and produces other works which they can use as their own.

Examine the code of whichever LLM

The exact mechanisms behind how it works does not matter. Not to mention the fact that not even the people who make LLMs know how their code works. So telling me to examine the code is ridiculous.

This is not about the resulting work being similar it is about the original work by the artist being used to train the AI without their consent, and without compensating them.

When i said the AI is essentially a photo copier i wasn't talking about the technology behind it. That should have been obvious. I was talking about the material reality of what happens.

Photo copier: Original work is scanned -> new work is created from it.

Generative AI: Original work is scanned -> new work is created from it.

They are the same in this regard. Obviously i was not implying that they are the same mechanically.

The part that matters is that the original work is where the labor value is put in. It takes labor to create the original work, but does not take labor to produce the new work. Be that on a photo copier making copies, or on an AI generating stuff.

To pretend as if the AI is just the same as some other artist mimicing a style is to show you have no understanding of the labor theory of value, or you simply do not care for it.

If another artist is mimicing a style they are putting in their own labor to do so. They are adding labor value themselves. They are also using the original work in a consentual manner. When an artist puts out work they are consenting to others viewing it and perhaps taking inspiration from it. What they are NOT consenting to is that work being scraped from the internet, fed into an AI, and used to pump out unlimited new works for someone elses profit. Just as they are not cosenting to someone photo copying their work and doing the same thing.

To try and argue that I'm the one supporting a bourgeois framework when you are the one who is seemingly completely ignoring where the actual value here comes from (the labor) is comical.

You continue to argue against things i never said aswell. Implying i advocated for expaning IP, and ignoring the fact i very clearly made a distinction that i don't support plagarism done by companies. Then implying that whatever i would setup in place of the current system, which i never specified, would somehow benefit companies instead of artists. Funny how you just seem to imagine things I think or say when they arent true. Then argue against those instead of what i actually said. Isn't there a word for that?

IP and copywrite arent the same. IP is a way for companies to own the idea behind a work, a character, setting, etc.

Copywrite (copyright? Idk) is a protection from plagarism. We as leftists support the person who does labor getting the value from that labor. Copywrite when used right is just protecting that idea.

If you write a book someone cant come along and photo copy it and start selling your book under their own name for example.

I am not "anti-AI" despite what the person you responded to tried to make it sound like. I am anti plagarism of hard working artists by huge companies. I would be perfectly fine with an artist for example feeding an AI model exclusively their own work to train it, or public domain works, and then using it to help them with tedious parts of drawing or something like that.

My point of mentioning that AI needs human made art as input to work with is that its essentially a fancy photo copier with extra abilites. But companies are acting as if the AI is "making" things on its own and stealing all the labor value that went into the art it trained on for themselves.

Ya you were right on the money with that understanding of my original comment. Guess i could have worded it better, but i really dont see how they took my comment to mean "AI art is bad cuz i dont like how it looks"

Oh no... how sad.......anyway

So did you willingly ignore the rest of my post where i quite literally specified that its horrific nonsense when it isnt trained on tons of already existing human made art? And im not even talking about the visual appeal of the art or whatever im talking about how when AI tries to make stuff when its either untrained, or is trained on other AI content it starts to breakdown and cease functioning. It just generates stuff that doesn't make any sense for the prompts. Good job replying to a post i didnt even make.

I think when companies do it they copywrite it as if the person who prompted the AI made it, and treat the AI like the "tool". That way they can copywrite it.