Post #1865492

2026-04-24 14:17 UTC

I feel the author routinelly conflates technology with technological implementations to make their point. For example, they conflate surveillance, with camera equipment and they conflate bridges, with city planning. What me and others are pointing out, is that we’re not hostile to GenAI as the technology (like cameras, bridges) but we’re absolutely against the popular (i.e. corporate) GenAI implementations. I feel there’s no harm whatsoever to use GenAI to personal gratification. Games, Porn, Shortcuts on boring but known tasks etc. But there’s absolutely harm to using corporate AI to do so, and there’s absolutely harm in using it for purposes outside of it (facts, propaganda, agents etc) And yes, any technology built in capitalist systems, will be inevitably corrupted from its inception from those systems. This is not exclusive to GenAI as a technology however.

Replies (2)

@Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-24 21:01

Things that can be weaponized should always be subjected to scrutiny like this. Firework sales are banned in some places because they are explosives and they require a licence. It was decided that any level of use is too dangerous for untrained people. Do I have a personal stash of fireworks in my basement? Yes. Am I allowing anyone with an Internet connection to sample the use of my fireworks? No. Your examples of applications vs technologies is flawed, as the creation and or distribution of those technologies you mentioned are very mature and have restrictions in their creation and use. I can't build a bridge and let anybody use it. I can't put a camera wherever I want either. People are harmed by misuse. If you want to claim that there is no harm, read that first paragraph again and view it through the lens of media that a person consumes while developing. Is allowing the tool to underrepresent certain children and hamper their ability to portray their peers something that we want to happen? Is that inability to portray diversity harmful? Should we restrict that use in some way? Personal gratification as an asocial thing, we can all agree that everyone should have a choice how they want that to be. Personal gratification is rarely completely that way though. Media is a source of expression and a focal point for shared experiences. In a social environment this tool can be inherently inequitable or used to abuse each other.

Open ##2432895
@naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-24 20:50

You did not correctly read the text. Winner's essay is "Do artifacts have politics?" i.e. does a particular bridge instantiate some politics, not bridges in general. So a particular bridge which is designed to exclude black children from school by stopping the bus carrying them sits there having racist politics. Another bridge designed to help black kids get to school might be anti-racist in its politics. They are two separate artefacts. The author is arguing that the machines as they exist, are fascist artefacts. If you made one say with consent of everyone involved, that could not be used for commercial purposes somehow, the data and outputs were not curated via exploitation of people from the global south, the data were made to be representative of humans truly etc then this would not be a fascist artefact. The author doesn't really specifically address this as a possibility because I think it's clear that (a) this isn't happening and (b) it actually can't at the moment.

Open ##2432896