@KatS... "it makes my work experience useless and devalues me as an employee" is a really bad sign.

Note that work requirements *changing* is the tricky bit here. The only constant is change. But change doesn't have to devalue your contribution.

Moving from pen to typewriter to computer didn't devalue the writer. Moving to LLMs does.

And then, it's unions.

@cwebber

@KatS If you ask me, the first thing to do is to ensure everyone understands how AI is a fascist project.

This also counters anti-AI criticism, namely that not all AI is the same. The key question is always "how does the use of AI in this case disenfranchise people?". (Same for "the cloud", btw, but people are even less willing to hear that.)

This is a conversation that can be had with non-techies.

"It makes my job easier" is a good argument for AI. On the other hand, ...

@cwebber

@cwebber ... labour. A population that needs to be educated and mobile enough to fulfil their task. Such a population tends to demand more say in the affairs of state.

So natural resources lead to tyrannies, and lack thereof to democracies.

Privatisation of knowledge is a way of creating artificial resources to extract with fewer labourers. Plus, the more that extraction is automated, the smaller the population a ruler needs - or the more precarious their existence.

That is the goal.

@cwebber I keep repeating this in such contexts, apologies if I sound like a broken record: AI is a fascist project.

The purpose isn't merely enclosure of the commons. Making public stuff private is more of a means to an end.

There is centuries of historic precedent that shows that when a state has natural resources, it needs fewer people to extract wealth from that, and so pay for what keeps rulers in power.

If a state has fewer resources, it has to rely on a large, healthy population's...