yogthos

Overall US trade accounts for something like 2% of the overall economy in China, so just based on that there fundamentally can't be a huge impact. On top of that, the US is fighting a trade war with the whole world, and as a result it's creating new trade niches for China. Latest data shows that Chinese trade was actually up 5.6 % in April.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202505/1333661.shtml

It is irrelevant to the discussion because nobody is supporting corporations doing these things. If you have a way to combat corporate actions such as the marginalized of Memphis getting poisoned by the giant data-center, then by all means do that. However, fighting against open source development of this tech has absolutely no impact on that.

Let’s pull out fallacies when you literally equated an operating system with a language model. Really?

I literally didn't do that. What I did was give you an analogy.

You’re ignoring my point and dismissing it as “irrelevant and a fallacy” because a group of coders found a use and justifying their current use of it as “open-source” while the majority of cases it is used in is directly harmful to marginalized people globally and even people in the first-world who are marginalized. That was my original point.

As I've already explained to you repeatedly in this thread, you're conflating two unrelated things here. That's the fallacy. One thing has no impact on the other. Yet, you continue claiming that being against open source somehow impacts what corporations do which it very obviously does not.

Meanwhile, just because you can personally think of uses for a tool doesn’t mean that the harms don’t exist and it actually has a use in Marxism other than for coding projects (or a niche use-case for a news agency which already spells trouble for ethics if you think about it for two seconds lmao).

Every technology has potential to do harm. Actual Marxists do not reject technology on this basis lmfao.

My other point was that you can’t expect people to embrace this or understand a clear use for this when it doesn’t have an existing one within political organization.

As others explained to you here, use within political organization is not a prerequisite. In fact, if you spent even a few minutes thinking about this, then you'd quickly realize that having open tools is a PREREQUISITE for it to even be possible for them to be used within political context.

Oh boy, me using an open-source AI really means that the harm and destruction that the current technology causes is irrelevant and a fallacy! Surely, while the capitalists use it to ream more productivity and value from me I can have an open-source version! Yay!

Oh boy, me breathing air and eating food while a billionaire also does it means I should just stop doing these things! This is literally the level of argument you've got here.

Same shit with phones. Phones truly are an amazing technology. They are slowly becoming more and more enshittified. Just because an open-source version of a phone exists doesn’t mean I want a phone when the bossman wants me to use it for every aspect of my life anyways.

Once again conflating technology with how it's used under capitalism. Meanwhile, ignoring clear benefits an open source phone has for people in the current system we live in. Just because we can't overthrow capitalism outright, does not mean we shouldn't make things better and give more power to the workers. I guess in your mind the overthrow of capitalism is just a magical event that has no material basis behind it lmao.

This is precisely what I've been trying to explain to people as well. Corporations will keep developing this technology. Nothing will stop this. It’s happening. So the only question that matters is: How will it be developed, and who controls it?

The irony is that fighting against the use of this tech outside corporations guarantees corps become its sole owners. The only rational path is to back community-driven development, just like any other open-source alternatives to corporate tools. Worker-owned. Community-controlled.

It’s mind-boggling that so many people fail to understand this.

A better comparison would be Kolomoisky v. Zelensky, just on a much faster timeline. Even in Ukraine, there was never any question who would prevail — the one with the state monopoly on violence.

AI is just a tool, and what bugs end up in software is solely dependent on the person using the tool.

Took around 3 years or so I guess.

I mean that's been the case all along, that's why most software is janky. The problem isn't technology itself, it's capitalist relations and the way technology ends up being applied as a result.

My view is that the author of the article is basically engaging in gatekeeping saying that people should use particular tools to do coding, and that LLMs make it too easy for people who shouldn't be coding to produce code. The reality is that the author is not happy with the fact that the bar is being lowered.

The argument regarding supposed danger is pure nonsense because any professional development involves code reviews, testing, and other practices to ensure code quality. Nobody just checks in random code into projects and hopes that it works.

Correct. However, the use-cases of this tool are much more harmful than good. Period.

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion. The tool exists, and capitalists will use it. This is completely independent of whether this tool is also used and developed in the open. Your argument is a logical fallacy because you're creating a dependency that doesn't exist to argue against the use of the tool.

Meanwhile, just because you can't personally think of uses for a tool that doesn't mean they don't exist and it's not helpful to others.

The main purpose of how the ruling class uses this tool will be the same regardless of whether there is a community version of the tool or not. Period.

You're conflating two separate things here which have no actual relationship between them. The question I ask you once again, is it better that Linux exists and provides an alternative for people or not?

Do you seriously not understand that the scenario where the rich control this tool exclusively is worse than one where there's a community owned version of the tool? Do you not understand the problems with closed operating systems like Windows that open alternatives like Linux solve?

I'm am a coder, and I've been doing this professionally for over two decades now. I don't think LLMs play any actual role here.