impartial_fanboy [he/him]
I do think people here have a tendency to just hate all of it out of hand, which I get to some extent.
Yeah the hype cycle is certainly annoying. As is the accompanying fire/re-hire at lower pay cycle that follows any automation.
ignoring the fact that it can render pretty amazing looking videos in such a short time span.
I actually think the generative aspect of neural networks is the least interesting/useful/innovative/etc. Though it will admittedly be more interesting when an LLM can say, use blender to make a video rather than just wholesale generating it. Or at least generate the files/3d models necessary to have it be edited by a person just like they would anything else. I suspect there will have to be a pretty significant architecture change for them to be able to make convincing/coherent movie-length videos.
Chaotic system control, like they’re doing with nuclear fusion plasma is the most interesting, to me anyway.
To expand on that for people who think it’s all just smoke and mirrors. I think, just like the assembly line, work places will be reorganized to facilitate the usefulness/capabilities of LLM’s and, perhaps more importantly, designed to obviate their weaknesses.
It’s just that people are still figuring out what that new organization will look like. There hasn’t been a Henry Ford type for LLM’s yet (and hopefully won’t be a Nazi this time). Obviously there’s no guarantee there will be such a person/organization but I don’t think it super unlikely either.
The dynamics of capital. It’s a given, which is why I caveated it with ‘if they continue capital accumulation’.
Could they be nicer about? Perhaps, but that would be due to technological development allowing them to carry out their exploitation with less direct violence, not because they are somehow morally superior for having been colonized. Just as the American Empire is/was less brutal than the British.
China did not industrialize on the basis of a colonial empire
It didn’t industrialize directly from a colonial empire, yes. However the capital that flowed into it certainly was, if China had not opened itself up to foreign capital it would not have industrialized anywhere near as fast as it did.
since the south will eventually get richer despite colonialism
Until they saturate their markets and start to look outside their borders for new markets.
while the north will struggle because it doesn’t know how to develop without colonialism
Colonialism is a product of capitalism, if you got rid of the entire global north but let the global south continue capital accumulation they would recreate colonialism, by necessity. No one knows how to develop without colonialism because no one knows how to develop without capitalism.
World systems theorists being methodologically nationalist, quelle surprise.
To be clear I’m sure their findings are close to the truth anyway but it just shows the limitations of the data/approach, like in what world is Singapore in the ‘global south’. But that’s on the data collectors.
But even disregarding that, including China in the ‘global south’ post 2008 is patently ridiculous. I really want to see what these percentages would say if China was included in the ‘global north’.
wen ur a srs anti-imperialist
Oh please. A school board member has absolutely no bearing on foreign policy, sacrificing your political capital on performative displays of anti-imperialism will only alienate the people you are trying to get to join and make other potentially sympathetic board members not want to be associated with you or your policies (even if you’re just voting in the negative). The people you are trying to reach do not engage with party literature, they hear about PSL from twitter or some local news article which regurgitates whatever the party’s take is in the least flattering way possible. Playing into that by using the platform a (very) minor presidential bid gives you is just … naive at best.
Maybe take one second to actually read about the rationale and tactics of the campaign.
I did. I just disagree.
One example. We raise a platform position - nationalize the 100 largest corporations, for example - and libs say “that will never happen even if you win, which you won’t because the system is stacked against you”. We say, “correct - we need a socialist revolution and the only historically proven way to do it is a Marxist-Leninist party”.
Why would anyone believe that? Genuinely. Not to mention nationalization isn’t even a uniquely socialist policy. The only even nominally socialist state of any significance is China and, at the very least, their economy is as capitalist as apple pie. Promises are cheap. Change people’s material conditions for the better and then they will believe you, not before. I understand its hard work and doesn’t have the glamour of a protest or a presidential bid, but if we actually want things to change for the better then it must be done.
No I consider it a vanity ticket because they have no intention of really winning. You can’t use the same strategy as every other 3rd party and expect people to not just assume that your party is exactly the same as every other grifter.
Pivoting to actually trying to win state ballots is a step backwards
Then you gotta do institution building which, as far as I’m aware, PSL does not do.
The goal of participating in bourgeois elections is to draw attention, nothing more.
I fully agree. And the best way to do that is to win seats so you can throw a wrench (or three) into the system and block any policies that would harm the working class. Then propagandize on those tangible achievements so that you can demonstrate to people that you can actually offer them something beyond just having the ‘correct’ opinions. All the while trying to build parallel institutions which can eventually take over the functions of the state you are trying to dismantle so people aren’t afraid society will collapse if you take power, electorally or otherwise.
