Research:Preventing the robot takeover - Revision history

Reversedragon: redirect

2025-12-17T23:31:46Z

redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 17 December 2025
Line 117:		Line 117:
	</references>		</references>

	[[Category:Policy guides]] ~~__NOTOC__~~		[[Category:Policy guides]] {{ArticleTitle\|NoContents=y}}
			<!-- page ends here.
			redirect: [[User:RD/AgainstAI]]
			subpage: [[User:RD/AgainstAI/list]] -->

Reversedragon: small flow edits; links, footnote

2025-07-01T00:28:26Z

small flow edits; links, footnote

Show changes

Reversedragon: /* What is a job? */ note: unfinished

2025-02-28T08:04:00Z

What is a job?: note: unfinished

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:04, 28 February 2025
Line 89:		Line 89:
	marxists quite quickly throw away class analysis when it comes to artificial neural networks, suddenly lumping together "every human" against "the machines"		marxists quite quickly throw away class analysis when it comes to artificial neural networks, suddenly lumping together "every human" against "the machines"
	this is a critical error — it is more or less the same error made in abandoning the development of early Maoism and creating Deng Xiaoping Thought. The population of China is taken as an isolated unit that above all else must frantically defend its existence against the surrounding world, and suddenly, everyone in China becomes committed to [[redlink to herd of cats effect\|the defense of everyone else in China]] regardless of class, and this state of things then continues to happen for the next 100 years.		this is a critical error — it is more or less the same error made in abandoning the development of early Maoism and creating Deng Xiaoping Thought. The population of China is taken as an isolated unit that above all else must frantically defend its existence against the surrounding world, and suddenly, everyone in China becomes committed to [[redlink to herd of cats effect\|the defense of everyone else in China]] regardless of class, and this state of things then continues to happen for the next 100 years.


			[article currently unfinished]

	== What is learning? ==		== What is learning? ==

Reversedragon: /* What is a job? */ what it means for an art creator to create culture

2025-02-27T16:37:17Z

What is a job?: what it means for an art creator to create culture

Show changes

Reversedragon: /* What is a job? */ networkism

2025-02-27T10:41:55Z

What is a job?: networkism

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:41, 27 February 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:
	If it is the case that an art creator is an Artist on grounds of copyright, then it is theoretically possible for machine learning to figure out the best way to continuously finance a publishing corporation and keep the institution that owns everyone's artistic or scientific creations stable while simultaneously granting hardly anybody access to them except the rarest academic "[[redlink to whales\|whales]]" willing to unearth rare and exclusive knowledge for huge amounts of money. Copyright is a tool of networkism that actually represents the ability of a business territory to maintain a stable Audience of customers, and this is the reason why copyright is frequently sold to larger economic structures. Most people would agree that the business territory owner who develops a media series in the most satisfactory way should hold copyright. However, the terrifying reality is that machine learning might be fully capable of calculating the best way to run a business territory based on the interests and hopes of all the constituent members of its Audience. It might sound amazing and very funny for a few seconds to declare that machine learning could automate away capitalists and "kick out your boss". But a few seconds later, the frightening realization will sink in that while so many arguments against machine learning have centered around the idea that it has fraudulently copied without attribution or figuratively "stolen" artistic output, the reality could be that a smarter machine learning agent which had "properly" purchased the designs for money could somehow turn out to be the most effective thing on earth at using designs to generate content people actually wanted, or even at selling production rights to studios to produce more content that way. Real-world machine learning corporations are not very far away from this, already gloating on their webpages that they have plugged the ethics hole by creating "ethically-sourced", "properly-licensed" art datasets. Nobody really wants to live in the scenario where all the world's visual designs, novels, and movie scripts are put into a computer and the computer periodically spits out which artworks are to be made for the good of the computer's own individual objectives and how little money the computer is going to pay people to make them. But where exactly did we make a wrong turn for things to end up like this?		If it is the case that an art creator is an Artist on grounds of copyright, then it is theoretically possible for machine learning to figure out the best way to continuously finance a publishing corporation and keep the institution that owns everyone's artistic or scientific creations stable while simultaneously granting hardly anybody access to them except the rarest academic "[[redlink to whales\|whales]]" willing to unearth rare and exclusive knowledge for huge amounts of money. Copyright is a tool of networkism that actually represents the ability of a business territory to maintain a stable Audience of customers, and this is the reason why copyright is frequently sold to larger economic structures. Most people would agree that the business territory owner who develops a media series in the most satisfactory way should hold copyright. However, the terrifying reality is that machine learning might be fully capable of calculating the best way to run a business territory based on the interests and hopes of all the constituent members of its Audience. It might sound amazing and very funny for a few seconds to declare that machine learning could automate away capitalists and "kick out your boss". But a few seconds later, the frightening realization will sink in that while so many arguments against machine learning have centered around the idea that it has fraudulently copied without attribution or figuratively "stolen" artistic output, the reality could be that a smarter machine learning agent which had "properly" purchased the designs for money could somehow turn out to be the most effective thing on earth at using designs to generate content people actually wanted, or even at selling production rights to studios to produce more content that way. Real-world machine learning corporations are not very far away from this, already gloating on their webpages that they have plugged the ethics hole by creating "ethically-sourced", "properly-licensed" art datasets. Nobody really wants to live in the scenario where all the world's visual designs, novels, and movie scripts are put into a computer and the computer periodically spits out which artworks are to be made for the good of the computer's own individual objectives and how little money the computer is going to pay people to make them. But where exactly did we make a wrong turn for things to end up like this?

	If an art creator is an Artist on grounds of Lived Experience or progressive hegemony, there is only more bad news. If somebody is claiming to be the most legitimate person to create representational art introducing people to the life of a particular demographic identity, it could hypothetically be the case that machine learning turned out to be exceptionally good at taking a script written by a cis heterosexual White man and calculating the minimum series of edits to be made to turn the story "approximately inclusive". The results might not be outstanding work that would feel uniquely inspired, and yet, in real-life situations, many Audiences of large media series and large popular-media brands do not have very high standards, to the point it is frighteningly possible average people would simply nod their heads and say the thing was now perfectly satisfactory. Think for a second about how average people actually process and evaluate things like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and what an average person's standard of acceptable quality is. Art students frequently hold the belief that the public longs to see good art made with vision or expert skill, but in reality, it would strongly appear that many people actually flock to art almost purely for the purpose of interacting with a particular socially-linked Audience of people who like the same general topics they do; networkism has struck again.		If an art creator is an Artist on grounds of Lived Experience or progressive hegemony, there is only more bad news. If somebody is claiming to be the most legitimate person to create representational art introducing people to the life of a particular demographic identity, it could hypothetically be the case that machine learning turned out to be exceptionally good at taking a script written by a cis heterosexual White man and calculating the minimum series of edits to be made to turn the story "approximately inclusive". The results might not be outstanding work that would feel uniquely inspired, and yet, in real-life situations, many Audiences of large media series and large popular-media brands do not have very high standards, to the point it is frighteningly possible average people would simply nod their heads and say the thing was now perfectly satisfactory. Think for a second about how average people actually process and evaluate things like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and what an average person's standard of acceptable quality is. Art students frequently hold the belief that the public longs to see good art made with vision or expert skill, but in reality, it would strongly appear that many people actually flock to art almost purely for the purpose of interacting with a particular socially-linked Audience of people who like the same general topics they do; networkism has struck again. In the real world, networkism sorts fans of existing or potential media series into Audiences, pays owners who are really good at binding together those Audiences, and throws the people with expertise and vision into seemingly-predetermined slots telling them exactly what they ought to create for those Audiences — "We hope you'll do it with polish!". After networkism has invented the jobs and networkism has invented the products, the question remains of what parts of the Audience-serving pipeline even actually desire a human in them. The really fortunate people break away and create new business territories, becoming Director, worker, and capitalist all at once. But they cannot escape the process of becoming neatly networkized into serving a particular Audience and having to continue to do the same particular thing until the day they cannot fulfill it. The process abhors particular individuals, and even when it doesn't, it still always hangs over them the threat of [[redlink - Anarchy is the most authoritarian thing there is\|being replaced if they are not perfect]].


Line 61:		Line 61:
	marxists quite quickly throw away class analysis when it comes to artificial neural networks, suddenly lumping together "every human" against "the machines"		marxists quite quickly throw away class analysis when it comes to artificial neural networks, suddenly lumping together "every human" against "the machines"
	this is a critical error — it is more or less the same error made in abandoning the development of early Maoism and creating Deng Xiaoping Thought. The population of China is taken as an isolated unit that above all else must frantically defend its existence against the surrounding world, and suddenly, everyone in China becomes committed to [[redlink to herd of cats effect\|the defense of everyone else in China]] regardless of class, and this state of things then continues to happen for the next 100 years.		this is a critical error — it is more or less the same error made in abandoning the development of early Maoism and creating Deng Xiaoping Thought. The population of China is taken as an isolated unit that above all else must frantically defend its existence against the surrounding world, and suddenly, everyone in China becomes committed to [[redlink to herd of cats effect\|the defense of everyone else in China]] regardless of class, and this state of things then continues to happen for the next 100 years.


	== What is learning? ==		== What is learning? ==

Reversedragon: machines and hegemony; machines and meta-ontology

2025-02-27T10:19:42Z

machines and hegemony; machines and meta-ontology

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 27 February 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:
	The question we must ask if we want to preserve the existence of art creators is, what is a machine learning program actually <em>taking</em>? What is it that an art creator <em>has</em>?		The question we must ask if we want to preserve the existence of art creators is, what is a machine learning program actually <em>taking</em>? What is it that an art creator <em>has</em>?

	This is one of many questions that practically nobody knows the correct answer to. Some number of people will answer that an art creator has "copyright", but this is not a good answer, because somebody can create a scientific paper and Elsevier can have ~~the~~ copyright ~~on it~~, preventing everyone and anyone from accessing the paper without having created much of anything in order to deserve that ability.		This is one of many questions that practically nobody knows the correct answer to. Some number of people will answer that an art creator has "copyright", but this is not a good answer, because somebody can create a scientific paper and Elsevier can have its copyright, preventing everyone and anyone from accessing the paper without having created much of anything in order to deserve that ability. Some number of people may answer that an art creator has "a place in a community", but this is also unfortunately wrong, because as long as networkism exists, it means that any particular art creator who has built up a series of strong connections and a steady Audience can suddenly become ejected when it happens that that particular art creator no longer gets along well with members of the Audience, or if it simply happens that someone else shows up who fulfills a similar role of creating art much better. While networkism exists, everyone is spontaneously replaceable. Every so-called "community" is very often simply made of a nearly-mathematical structure of people who hardly know each other at all beyond precisely fulfilling some narrow functional purpose for each other, and as soon as somebody else better fulfills that purpose, bonds snap and the remaining people form into a whole new "community". Some number of people will say that an art creator has a unique "lived experience" expressed through art that a machine cannot replicate. This too is dubious, given that <em>every</em> human being has an inner Lived Experience and it could easily be that many legitimate feelings and experiences are being completely omitted from all but the very most obscure art should they turn up anywhere. If there can be situations where the greater portion of career artists drown out the experiences of a great number of people who have never created art through their collective discourse-creating and space-filling power, then how can anyone know for sure, in the midst of their own inevitable cultural conditioning, if the social position of any particular career artist is actually earned or justified? The study of hegemony politics would almost appear to suggest there is always a kind of "[[redlink\|Gödel gap]]" in every attempt by an individual to be aware of prejudice, and we can <em>never</em> justify a general universal right for anyone who might be a career artist to be an artist.

	If it is the case that an art creator is an Artist on grounds of copyright, then it is theoretically possible for machine learning to figure out the best way to continuously finance a publishing corporation and keep the institution that owns everyone's artistic or scientific creations stable while simultaneously granting hardly anybody access to them except the rarest academic "[[redlink to whales\|whales]]" willing to unearth rare and exclusive knowledge for huge amounts of money. Copyright is a tool of networkism that actually represents the ability of a business territory to maintain a stable Audience of customers, and this is the reason why copyright is frequently sold to larger economic structures. Most people would agree that the business territory owner who develops a media series in the most satisfactory way should hold copyright. However, the terrifying reality is that machine learning might be fully capable of calculating the best way to run a business territory based on the interests and hopes of all the constituent members of its Audience. It might sound amazing and very funny for a few seconds to declare that machine learning could automate away capitalists and "kick out your boss". But a few seconds later, the frightening realization will sink in that while so many arguments against machine learning have centered around the idea that it has fraudulently copied without attribution or figuratively "stolen" artistic output, the reality could be that a smarter machine learning agent which had "properly" purchased the designs for money could somehow turn out to be the most effective thing on earth at using designs to generate content people actually wanted, or even at selling production rights to studios to produce more content that way. Nobody really wants to live in the scenario where all the world's visual designs, novels, and movie scripts are put into a computer and the computer periodically spits out which artworks are to be made for the good of the computer's own individual objectives and how little money the computer is going to pay people to make them. But where exactly did we make a wrong turn to end up ~~here~~?		If it is the case that an art creator is an Artist on grounds of copyright, then it is theoretically possible for machine learning to figure out the best way to continuously finance a publishing corporation and keep the institution that owns everyone's artistic or scientific creations stable while simultaneously granting hardly anybody access to them except the rarest academic "[[redlink to whales\|whales]]" willing to unearth rare and exclusive knowledge for huge amounts of money. Copyright is a tool of networkism that actually represents the ability of a business territory to maintain a stable Audience of customers, and this is the reason why copyright is frequently sold to larger economic structures. Most people would agree that the business territory owner who develops a media series in the most satisfactory way should hold copyright. However, the terrifying reality is that machine learning might be fully capable of calculating the best way to run a business territory based on the interests and hopes of all the constituent members of its Audience. It might sound amazing and very funny for a few seconds to declare that machine learning could automate away capitalists and "kick out your boss". But a few seconds later, the frightening realization will sink in that while so many arguments against machine learning have centered around the idea that it has fraudulently copied without attribution or figuratively "stolen" artistic output, the reality could be that a smarter machine learning agent which had "properly" purchased the designs for money could somehow turn out to be the most effective thing on earth at using designs to generate content people actually wanted, or even at selling production rights to studios to produce more content that way. Real-world machine learning corporations are not very far away from this, already gloating on their webpages that they have plugged the ethics hole by creating "ethically-sourced", "properly-licensed" art datasets. Nobody really wants to live in the scenario where all the world's visual designs, novels, and movie scripts are put into a computer and the computer periodically spits out which artworks are to be made for the good of the computer's own individual objectives and how little money the computer is going to pay people to make them. But where exactly did we make a wrong turn for things to end up like this?

			If an art creator is an Artist on grounds of Lived Experience or progressive hegemony, there is only more bad news. If somebody is claiming to be the most legitimate person to create representational art introducing people to the life of a particular demographic identity, it could hypothetically be the case that machine learning turned out to be exceptionally good at taking a script written by a cis heterosexual White man and calculating the minimum series of edits to be made to turn the story "approximately inclusive". The results might not be outstanding work that would feel uniquely inspired, and yet, in real-life situations, many Audiences of large media series and large popular-media brands do not have very high standards, to the point it is frighteningly possible average people would simply nod their heads and say the thing was now perfectly satisfactory. Think for a second about how average people actually process and evaluate things like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and what an average person's standard of acceptable quality is. Art students frequently hold the belief that the public longs to see good art made with vision or expert skill, but in reality, it would strongly appear that many people actually flock to art almost purely for the purpose of interacting with a particular socially-linked Audience of people who like the same general topics they do; networkism has struck again.




			at the end of all this, it is still the case that there are a few things that machine learning absolutely, definitely, certainly cannot do, while a living human being can. these, as you might finally have come to expect by now, are things that most human beings will not find intuitive at the current time.

			a machine can never ask why it is doing anything, or for what reason it believes anything. a very smart machine can build a sophisticated <i>ontology</i>, modeling and predicting any number of things about the world, but if there were two machines with different ontologies, a machine cannot actually ask whether it is better to be the machine it is with the ontology it has or whether it is in fact better to be the other machine. if one machine reads every mainstream Marxist-Leninist text and one machine reads every Trotskyist text, neither machine can actually properly evaluate whether it is better to be "StalinBot" or "TrotskyBot". humans are capable of figuring out this distinction. humans regularly deconvert from religions or join other religions. humans have the ability to abandon one ideology and pursue another ideology, or to abandon multiple ideologies at once and create new ideologies. if the only thing we required was for a machine to spit out a new nonsensical ideology from whatever associations of words it knows, a machine could probably achieve that much. but a machine does not have the capacity to truly evaluate how all those seemingly-random words actually map onto the assortment of objects or people that exists in the real world. for a long time, most machine learning only modeled the relationships between linguistic words in sentences themselves, and did not even consider why any of those words were related; machines were smart enough to know that the word "Trotsky" had a certain probability to be connected to "wrecker" and a certain probability to be connected to "hero", or that "gasoline" had a certain probability to be connected to "car" and a certain probability to be connected to "drink", but they did not inherently have any idea how to determine if those were good associations or what series of real-world events might have caused those associations. without the ability to understand <em>why</em> exactly people speak of particular concepts in sentences as connected to other concepts, a machine is more or less incapable of doing historical materialism. while one can teach a machine to outwardly perform particular locally-accepted answers for why history happened the way it did and why we should remember history, the machine cannot actually carry out the process of stepping back and examining its own "hidden biases" at the core of every actual Existentialist theory of prejudice. sometimes it may seem depressingly accurate to say the same is true for some arrangements of humans, but if it makes you feel any better, you can tell those people that the more they refuse to change the more dangerously close they come to it being possible to replace their entire position in society with machines.

			a machine cannot perform meta-ontology.
			only in science fiction movies where robots have become self-aware people could a machine ever do this.

Reversedragon: strange and frightening Elsevier computer

2025-02-27T08:52:56Z

strange and frightening Elsevier computer

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 27 February 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:
	The existence of networkism, as well as "art careers" and career "artists", takes a seemingly simple discussion about art versus machine learning and vastly complicates it — almost nobody alive today understands the actual relationship between "art careers" and machine learning, including what may be a great portion of the world's Marxist-Leninist theorists. This leads to great numbers of people "opposing" machine learning for entirely the wrong reasons, in ways that <em>may not be able to get rid of</em> these harmful applications of machine learning. If we want to oppose machine learning correctly and make sure it is gone, the first step is to understand networkism, and in turn how machines interact with networkism and begin learning to perform networkism more effectively than humans.		The existence of networkism, as well as "art careers" and career "artists", takes a seemingly simple discussion about art versus machine learning and vastly complicates it — almost nobody alive today understands the actual relationship between "art careers" and machine learning, including what may be a great portion of the world's Marxist-Leninist theorists. This leads to great numbers of people "opposing" machine learning for entirely the wrong reasons, in ways that <em>may not be able to get rid of</em> these harmful applications of machine learning. If we want to oppose machine learning correctly and make sure it is gone, the first step is to understand networkism, and in turn how machines interact with networkism and begin learning to perform networkism more effectively than humans.

	== What a job is ==		== What is a job? ==

			The question we must ask if we want to preserve the existence of art creators is, what is a machine learning program actually <em>taking</em>? What is it that an art creator <em>has</em>?

			This is one of many questions that practically nobody knows the correct answer to. Some number of people will answer that an art creator has "copyright", but this is not a good answer, because somebody can create a scientific paper and Elsevier can have the copyright on it, preventing everyone and anyone from accessing the paper without having created much of anything in order to deserve that ability.

			If it is the case that an art creator is an Artist on grounds of copyright, then it is theoretically possible for machine learning to figure out the best way to continuously finance a publishing corporation and keep the institution that owns everyone's artistic or scientific creations stable while simultaneously granting hardly anybody access to them except the rarest academic "[[redlink to whales\|whales]]" willing to unearth rare and exclusive knowledge for huge amounts of money. Copyright is a tool of networkism that actually represents the ability of a business territory to maintain a stable Audience of customers, and this is the reason why copyright is frequently sold to larger economic structures. Most people would agree that the business territory owner who develops a media series in the most satisfactory way should hold copyright. However, the terrifying reality is that machine learning might be fully capable of calculating the best way to run a business territory based on the interests and hopes of all the constituent members of its Audience. It might sound amazing and very funny for a few seconds to declare that machine learning could automate away capitalists and "kick out your boss". But a few seconds later, the frightening realization will sink in that while so many arguments against machine learning have centered around the idea that it has fraudulently copied without attribution or figuratively "stolen" artistic output, the reality could be that a smarter machine learning agent which had "properly" purchased the designs for money could somehow turn out to be the most effective thing on earth at using designs to generate content people actually wanted, or even at selling production rights to studios to produce more content that way. Nobody really wants to live in the scenario where all the world's visual designs, novels, and movie scripts are put into a computer and the computer periodically spits out which artworks are to be made for the good of the computer's own individual objectives and how little money the computer is going to pay people to make them. But where exactly did we make a wrong turn to end up here?

Reversedragon: every human against the machines

2025-02-27T08:21:01Z

every human against the machines

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:21, 27 February 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:
	The terrifying thing about networkism is that we can't simply stop doing it. Networkism is not something any of us decide to do, or personally invent; it simply <em>is</em>. Whenever an online social platform composed of free-floating individual users exists, over time it tends to slowly slide into becoming networkism. Sometimes networkism comes in "soft" forms, where individual users simply post an increasingly consistent type of content and accumulate increasing numbers of followers that all expect the user to do that thing or donate money to encourage the user to do that thing. Sometimes networkism comes in "harder" forms where a platform such as Reddit accumulates increasingly esoteric sets of rules to incentivize everybody to behave: only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on popular "entry-level" subreddits get to make any comments or posts on smaller topic-based subreddits, and only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on the small subreddits get to make any posts, all before anyone actually gets to vote posts up or down and decide some posts get seen and some posts don't get seen. It can easily be that a new user begins to find a particular subreddit completely pointless to participate in and a complete waste of their individual time and energy before ever getting through the required period of supposedly "getting to know the community" and becoming able to actually contribute anything, and yet all of it emerges from the need to mathematically predict from neat integer numbers whether people intend to follow local subreddit norms and to insulate subreddits from spambots. The way Reddit karma really functions is as a kind of double networkizing process where all individuals who intend to join subreddits are slowly sorted into particular purposes and identities they have proven to be most appropriate for them and away from forms of performing purpose and identity which are not in some way advantageous to other people. If people keep using Reddit and don't quit, they end up in exactly the subreddits whose rules and norms they are the most capable of performing, regardless of what subreddit topics they may actually want to be in, surrounded by exactly the group of people they are the most inherently compatible with relative to all the other available options, which they are the closest to being able to please by posting what these people consider to be the correct types of posts — Reddit advertises itself as the kind of place where people can choose to join the potted plants circle if they like potted plants, but in practice is more like the place where you end up slotted into the used fire alarm collector community if it happens you are inherently compatible with the kind of people who go to auctions to buy heaps of used fire alarms. [1]		The terrifying thing about networkism is that we can't simply stop doing it. Networkism is not something any of us decide to do, or personally invent; it simply <em>is</em>. Whenever an online social platform composed of free-floating individual users exists, over time it tends to slowly slide into becoming networkism. Sometimes networkism comes in "soft" forms, where individual users simply post an increasingly consistent type of content and accumulate increasing numbers of followers that all expect the user to do that thing or donate money to encourage the user to do that thing. Sometimes networkism comes in "harder" forms where a platform such as Reddit accumulates increasingly esoteric sets of rules to incentivize everybody to behave: only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on popular "entry-level" subreddits get to make any comments or posts on smaller topic-based subreddits, and only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on the small subreddits get to make any posts, all before anyone actually gets to vote posts up or down and decide some posts get seen and some posts don't get seen. It can easily be that a new user begins to find a particular subreddit completely pointless to participate in and a complete waste of their individual time and energy before ever getting through the required period of supposedly "getting to know the community" and becoming able to actually contribute anything, and yet all of it emerges from the need to mathematically predict from neat integer numbers whether people intend to follow local subreddit norms and to insulate subreddits from spambots. The way Reddit karma really functions is as a kind of double networkizing process where all individuals who intend to join subreddits are slowly sorted into particular purposes and identities they have proven to be most appropriate for them and away from forms of performing purpose and identity which are not in some way advantageous to other people. If people keep using Reddit and don't quit, they end up in exactly the subreddits whose rules and norms they are the most capable of performing, regardless of what subreddit topics they may actually want to be in, surrounded by exactly the group of people they are the most inherently compatible with relative to all the other available options, which they are the closest to being able to please by posting what these people consider to be the correct types of posts — Reddit advertises itself as the kind of place where people can choose to join the potted plants circle if they like potted plants, but in practice is more like the place where you end up slotted into the used fire alarm collector community if it happens you are inherently compatible with the kind of people who go to auctions to buy heaps of used fire alarms. [1]

			The existence of networkism, as well as "art careers" and career "artists", takes a seemingly simple discussion about art versus machine learning and vastly complicates it — almost nobody alive today understands the actual relationship between "art careers" and machine learning, including what may be a great portion of the world's Marxist-Leninist theorists. This leads to great numbers of people "opposing" machine learning for entirely the wrong reasons, in ways that <em>may not be able to get rid of</em> these harmful applications of machine learning. If we want to oppose machine learning correctly and make sure it is gone, the first step is to understand networkism, and in turn how machines interact with networkism and begin learning to perform networkism more effectively than humans.

			== What a job is ==





			marxists quite quickly throw away class analysis when it comes to artificial neural networks, suddenly lumping together "every human" against "the machines"
			this is a critical error — it is more or less the same error made in abandoning the development of early Maoism and creating Deng Xiaoping Thought. The population of China is taken as an isolated unit that above all else must frantically defend its existence against the surrounding world, and suddenly, everyone in China becomes committed to [[redlink to herd of cats effect\|the defense of everyone else in China]] regardless of class, and this state of things then continues to happen for the next 100 years.

Reversedragon: move footnote

2025-02-27T07:46:46Z

move footnote

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 27 February 2025
Line 33:		Line 33:
	A third person may say that the creation of art is a valid way to contribute labor to society and receive a wage from other people who contribute to society with which to buy one's basic necessities and with which to live. Under this definition of art, the act of individual expression necessarily becomes secondary, as well as its informational content. Realistically speaking, the amount of productivity that can issue from each individual or household is limited, and each person has only so much money and effort to contribute to purchasing and consuming art. One can easily imagine conceptually taking every individual in society and sectioning all the conscious waking energy they have into equal segments, and under this model, there are always a finite number of energy segments to go around, meaning that if anyone who produces art for money wishes to actually earn any money they had better claim every one of these segments before anybody who does not produce art for money. Should some dreadfully successful spare-time art creator manage to create a smash hit that is available to everyone free that spreads across the planet with very little additional labor, everybody trying to sell art for money has a far lower probability to earn any money. At the same time, each time someone attempts to create art for money, that person will only have the highest probability to earn money if they anticipate exactly what kind of art their hypothetical fanbase would most like to purchase and create <em>that</em> kind of art over whatever would qualify as their most authentic individual expression. The person creating art may choose to optimize the definition of their ideal fanbase so that while it is as big as possible given other constraints it also comes as close as possible in its content to what an authentic expression would be, but this does not change the fundamental dynamic of this overall social process. The act of turning art into a sale is the act of turning communication into a sale, and ensuring that each individual person must narrow onto some specific limited assortment of ideas and communications while making the most efficient use of their individual energy by discarding all other ideas and communications they personally deem irrelevant. The act of selling, or of operating anything like an open market of free-floating shops, ensures that over time the loose and malleable connections between particular individuals will strengthen, much like a neural connection or slime mold, and that what were once free and voluntary forms of association become increasingly locked-in and mandatory. It cannot be otherwise, because in order to earn money consistently a person who creates art must do a particular action consistently. When money comes in, this happens because somebody else thought the task somebody did was satisfactory or that somebody was reliable, so if money keeps coming in, it then means that somebody is becoming <em>increasingly</em> capable of doing something and <em>increasingly</em> reliable. The creator of art begins with particular physical needs or expenses such as a weekly basket of groceries, and trades that incoming basket of groceries for having to behave a particular way and <em>be</em> a particular way. The art creator makes the decision that they will justify their continued existence to everyone else by accepting a particular specified and limited purpose. In the emerging field of meta-Marxist analysis, this process is tentatively called [[redlink\|networkism]] or [[redlink\|Audienceism]].		A third person may say that the creation of art is a valid way to contribute labor to society and receive a wage from other people who contribute to society with which to buy one's basic necessities and with which to live. Under this definition of art, the act of individual expression necessarily becomes secondary, as well as its informational content. Realistically speaking, the amount of productivity that can issue from each individual or household is limited, and each person has only so much money and effort to contribute to purchasing and consuming art. One can easily imagine conceptually taking every individual in society and sectioning all the conscious waking energy they have into equal segments, and under this model, there are always a finite number of energy segments to go around, meaning that if anyone who produces art for money wishes to actually earn any money they had better claim every one of these segments before anybody who does not produce art for money. Should some dreadfully successful spare-time art creator manage to create a smash hit that is available to everyone free that spreads across the planet with very little additional labor, everybody trying to sell art for money has a far lower probability to earn any money. At the same time, each time someone attempts to create art for money, that person will only have the highest probability to earn money if they anticipate exactly what kind of art their hypothetical fanbase would most like to purchase and create <em>that</em> kind of art over whatever would qualify as their most authentic individual expression. The person creating art may choose to optimize the definition of their ideal fanbase so that while it is as big as possible given other constraints it also comes as close as possible in its content to what an authentic expression would be, but this does not change the fundamental dynamic of this overall social process. The act of turning art into a sale is the act of turning communication into a sale, and ensuring that each individual person must narrow onto some specific limited assortment of ideas and communications while making the most efficient use of their individual energy by discarding all other ideas and communications they personally deem irrelevant. The act of selling, or of operating anything like an open market of free-floating shops, ensures that over time the loose and malleable connections between particular individuals will strengthen, much like a neural connection or slime mold, and that what were once free and voluntary forms of association become increasingly locked-in and mandatory. It cannot be otherwise, because in order to earn money consistently a person who creates art must do a particular action consistently. When money comes in, this happens because somebody else thought the task somebody did was satisfactory or that somebody was reliable, so if money keeps coming in, it then means that somebody is becoming <em>increasingly</em> capable of doing something and <em>increasingly</em> reliable. The creator of art begins with particular physical needs or expenses such as a weekly basket of groceries, and trades that incoming basket of groceries for having to behave a particular way and <em>be</em> a particular way. The art creator makes the decision that they will justify their continued existence to everyone else by accepting a particular specified and limited purpose. In the emerging field of meta-Marxist analysis, this process is tentatively called [[redlink\|networkism]] or [[redlink\|Audienceism]].

	The terrifying thing about networkism is that we can't simply stop doing it. Networkism is not something any of us decide to do, or personally invent; it simply <em>is</em>. Whenever an online social platform composed of free-floating individual users exists, over time it tends to slowly slide into becoming networkism. Sometimes networkism comes in "soft" forms, where individual users simply post an increasingly consistent type of content and accumulate increasing numbers of followers that all expect the user to do that thing or donate money to encourage the user to do that thing. Sometimes networkism comes in "harder" forms where a platform such as Reddit accumulates increasingly esoteric sets of rules to incentivize everybody to behave: only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on popular "entry-level" subreddits get to make any comments or posts on smaller topic-based subreddits, and only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on the small subreddits get to make any posts, all before anyone actually gets to vote posts up or down and decide some posts get seen and some posts don't get seen. It can easily be that a new user begins to find a particular subreddit completely pointless to participate in and a complete waste of their individual time and energy before ever getting through the required period of supposedly "getting to know the community" and becoming able to actually contribute anything, and yet all of it emerges from the need to mathematically predict from neat integer numbers whether people intend to follow local subreddit norms and to insulate subreddits from spambots. The way Reddit karma really functions is as a kind of double networkizing process where all individuals who intend to join subreddits are slowly sorted into particular purposes and identities they have proven to be most appropriate for them and away from forms of performing purpose and identity which are not in some way advantageous to other people. If people keep using Reddit and don't quit, they end up in exactly the subreddits whose rules and norms they are the most capable of performing, regardless of what subreddit topics they may actually want to be in, surrounded by exactly the group of people they are the most inherently compatible with relative to all the other available options, which they are the closest to being able to please by posting what these people consider to be the correct types of posts — Reddit advertises itself as the kind of place where people can choose to join the potted plants circle if they like potted plants, but in practice is more like the place where you end up slotted into the used fire alarm collector community if you are inherently compatible with the kind of people who go to auctions to buy heaps of used fire alarms.		The terrifying thing about networkism is that we can't simply stop doing it. Networkism is not something any of us decide to do, or personally invent; it simply <em>is</em>. Whenever an online social platform composed of free-floating individual users exists, over time it tends to slowly slide into becoming networkism. Sometimes networkism comes in "soft" forms, where individual users simply post an increasingly consistent type of content and accumulate increasing numbers of followers that all expect the user to do that thing or donate money to encourage the user to do that thing. Sometimes networkism comes in "harder" forms where a platform such as Reddit accumulates increasingly esoteric sets of rules to incentivize everybody to behave: only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on popular "entry-level" subreddits get to make any comments or posts on smaller topic-based subreddits, and only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on the small subreddits get to make any posts, all before anyone actually gets to vote posts up or down and decide some posts get seen and some posts don't get seen. It can easily be that a new user begins to find a particular subreddit completely pointless to participate in and a complete waste of their individual time and energy before ever getting through the required period of supposedly "getting to know the community" and becoming able to actually contribute anything, and yet all of it emerges from the need to mathematically predict from neat integer numbers whether people intend to follow local subreddit norms and to insulate subreddits from spambots. The way Reddit karma really functions is as a kind of double networkizing process where all individuals who intend to join subreddits are slowly sorted into particular purposes and identities they have proven to be most appropriate for them and away from forms of performing purpose and identity which are not in some way advantageous to other people. If people keep using Reddit and don't quit, they end up in exactly the subreddits whose rules and norms they are the most capable of performing, regardless of what subreddit topics they may actually want to be in, surrounded by exactly the group of people they are the most inherently compatible with relative to all the other available options, which they are the closest to being able to please by posting what these people consider to be the correct types of posts — Reddit advertises itself as the kind of place where people can choose to join the potted plants circle if they like potted plants, but in practice is more like the place where you end up slotted into the used fire alarm collector community if it happens you are inherently compatible with the kind of people who go to auctions to buy heaps of used fire alarms. [1]


	(It is worth remarking at this point that the fact there are any [[redlink to schizoanalysis\|schizoanalysts]] busy typing schizoanalyst posts on Reddit softly proves that no member of schizoanalysis can concretely explain or apply [[redlink to necessary fuzziness between categories\|any]] of the [[redlink to deterritorialization\|principles]] of schizoanalysis.)

	== What is learning? ==		== What is learning? ==
Line 55:		Line 55:
	because the reason people are prejudiced is not that people choose not to learn, but that people are arranged badly. bad arrangements prompt people to complain about their bad arrangements and face people who cannot fix their bad physical arrangements and try to tell them about other problems with vitriol. in order to be compassionate, or to <em>be anything</em> in any mode of being, people first must <em>be</em> period. bad arrangements threaten the capability of people to <em>be</em>, and in so doing give them very little time to think about the correct things to do and correct ways to think during their process of being.		because the reason people are prejudiced is not that people choose not to learn, but that people are arranged badly. bad arrangements prompt people to complain about their bad arrangements and face people who cannot fix their bad physical arrangements and try to tell them about other problems with vitriol. in order to be compassionate, or to <em>be anything</em> in any mode of being, people first must <em>be</em> period. bad arrangements threaten the capability of people to <em>be</em>, and in so doing give them very little time to think about the correct things to do and correct ways to think during their process of being.

			== Footnotes ==

			[1] It is worth remarking at this point that the fact there are any [[redlink to schizoanalysis\|schizoanalysts]] busy typing schizoanalyst posts on Reddit softly proves that no member of schizoanalysis can concretely explain or apply [[redlink to necessary fuzziness between categories\|any]] of the [[redlink to deterritorialization\|principles]] of schizoanalysis.

	[[Category:Policy guides]] __NOTOC__		[[Category:Policy guides]] __NOTOC__

Reversedragon: /* What is art? */ networkism, and heaps of used fire alarms

2025-02-27T07:44:33Z

What is art?: networkism, and heaps of used fire alarms

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:44, 27 February 2025
Line 32:		Line 32:

	A third person may say that the creation of art is a valid way to contribute labor to society and receive a wage from other people who contribute to society with which to buy one's basic necessities and with which to live. Under this definition of art, the act of individual expression necessarily becomes secondary, as well as its informational content. Realistically speaking, the amount of productivity that can issue from each individual or household is limited, and each person has only so much money and effort to contribute to purchasing and consuming art. One can easily imagine conceptually taking every individual in society and sectioning all the conscious waking energy they have into equal segments, and under this model, there are always a finite number of energy segments to go around, meaning that if anyone who produces art for money wishes to actually earn any money they had better claim every one of these segments before anybody who does not produce art for money. Should some dreadfully successful spare-time art creator manage to create a smash hit that is available to everyone free that spreads across the planet with very little additional labor, everybody trying to sell art for money has a far lower probability to earn any money. At the same time, each time someone attempts to create art for money, that person will only have the highest probability to earn money if they anticipate exactly what kind of art their hypothetical fanbase would most like to purchase and create <em>that</em> kind of art over whatever would qualify as their most authentic individual expression. The person creating art may choose to optimize the definition of their ideal fanbase so that while it is as big as possible given other constraints it also comes as close as possible in its content to what an authentic expression would be, but this does not change the fundamental dynamic of this overall social process. The act of turning art into a sale is the act of turning communication into a sale, and ensuring that each individual person must narrow onto some specific limited assortment of ideas and communications while making the most efficient use of their individual energy by discarding all other ideas and communications they personally deem irrelevant. The act of selling, or of operating anything like an open market of free-floating shops, ensures that over time the loose and malleable connections between particular individuals will strengthen, much like a neural connection or slime mold, and that what were once free and voluntary forms of association become increasingly locked-in and mandatory. It cannot be otherwise, because in order to earn money consistently a person who creates art must do a particular action consistently. When money comes in, this happens because somebody else thought the task somebody did was satisfactory or that somebody was reliable, so if money keeps coming in, it then means that somebody is becoming <em>increasingly</em> capable of doing something and <em>increasingly</em> reliable. The creator of art begins with particular physical needs or expenses such as a weekly basket of groceries, and trades that incoming basket of groceries for having to behave a particular way and <em>be</em> a particular way. The art creator makes the decision that they will justify their continued existence to everyone else by accepting a particular specified and limited purpose. In the emerging field of meta-Marxist analysis, this process is tentatively called [[redlink\|networkism]] or [[redlink\|Audienceism]].		A third person may say that the creation of art is a valid way to contribute labor to society and receive a wage from other people who contribute to society with which to buy one's basic necessities and with which to live. Under this definition of art, the act of individual expression necessarily becomes secondary, as well as its informational content. Realistically speaking, the amount of productivity that can issue from each individual or household is limited, and each person has only so much money and effort to contribute to purchasing and consuming art. One can easily imagine conceptually taking every individual in society and sectioning all the conscious waking energy they have into equal segments, and under this model, there are always a finite number of energy segments to go around, meaning that if anyone who produces art for money wishes to actually earn any money they had better claim every one of these segments before anybody who does not produce art for money. Should some dreadfully successful spare-time art creator manage to create a smash hit that is available to everyone free that spreads across the planet with very little additional labor, everybody trying to sell art for money has a far lower probability to earn any money. At the same time, each time someone attempts to create art for money, that person will only have the highest probability to earn money if they anticipate exactly what kind of art their hypothetical fanbase would most like to purchase and create <em>that</em> kind of art over whatever would qualify as their most authentic individual expression. The person creating art may choose to optimize the definition of their ideal fanbase so that while it is as big as possible given other constraints it also comes as close as possible in its content to what an authentic expression would be, but this does not change the fundamental dynamic of this overall social process. The act of turning art into a sale is the act of turning communication into a sale, and ensuring that each individual person must narrow onto some specific limited assortment of ideas and communications while making the most efficient use of their individual energy by discarding all other ideas and communications they personally deem irrelevant. The act of selling, or of operating anything like an open market of free-floating shops, ensures that over time the loose and malleable connections between particular individuals will strengthen, much like a neural connection or slime mold, and that what were once free and voluntary forms of association become increasingly locked-in and mandatory. It cannot be otherwise, because in order to earn money consistently a person who creates art must do a particular action consistently. When money comes in, this happens because somebody else thought the task somebody did was satisfactory or that somebody was reliable, so if money keeps coming in, it then means that somebody is becoming <em>increasingly</em> capable of doing something and <em>increasingly</em> reliable. The creator of art begins with particular physical needs or expenses such as a weekly basket of groceries, and trades that incoming basket of groceries for having to behave a particular way and <em>be</em> a particular way. The art creator makes the decision that they will justify their continued existence to everyone else by accepting a particular specified and limited purpose. In the emerging field of meta-Marxist analysis, this process is tentatively called [[redlink\|networkism]] or [[redlink\|Audienceism]].

			The terrifying thing about networkism is that we can't simply stop doing it. Networkism is not something any of us decide to do, or personally invent; it simply <em>is</em>. Whenever an online social platform composed of free-floating individual users exists, over time it tends to slowly slide into becoming networkism. Sometimes networkism comes in "soft" forms, where individual users simply post an increasingly consistent type of content and accumulate increasing numbers of followers that all expect the user to do that thing or donate money to encourage the user to do that thing. Sometimes networkism comes in "harder" forms where a platform such as Reddit accumulates increasingly esoteric sets of rules to incentivize everybody to behave: only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on popular "entry-level" subreddits get to make any comments or posts on smaller topic-based subreddits, and only people who accumulate large numbers of comments on the small subreddits get to make any posts, all before anyone actually gets to vote posts up or down and decide some posts get seen and some posts don't get seen. It can easily be that a new user begins to find a particular subreddit completely pointless to participate in and a complete waste of their individual time and energy before ever getting through the required period of supposedly "getting to know the community" and becoming able to actually contribute anything, and yet all of it emerges from the need to mathematically predict from neat integer numbers whether people intend to follow local subreddit norms and to insulate subreddits from spambots. The way Reddit karma really functions is as a kind of double networkizing process where all individuals who intend to join subreddits are slowly sorted into particular purposes and identities they have proven to be most appropriate for them and away from forms of performing purpose and identity which are not in some way advantageous to other people. If people keep using Reddit and don't quit, they end up in exactly the subreddits whose rules and norms they are the most capable of performing, regardless of what subreddit topics they may actually want to be in, surrounded by exactly the group of people they are the most inherently compatible with relative to all the other available options, which they are the closest to being able to please by posting what these people consider to be the correct types of posts — Reddit advertises itself as the kind of place where people can choose to join the potted plants circle if they like potted plants, but in practice is more like the place where you end up slotted into the used fire alarm collector community if you are inherently compatible with the kind of people who go to auctions to buy heaps of used fire alarms.

			(It is worth remarking at this point that the fact there are any [[redlink to schizoanalysis\|schizoanalysts]] busy typing schizoanalyst posts on Reddit softly proves that no member of schizoanalysis can concretely explain or apply [[redlink to necessary fuzziness between categories\|any]] of the [[redlink to deterritorialization\|principles]] of schizoanalysis.)

	== What is learning? ==		== What is learning? ==