this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
11 points (76.2% liked)

Technology

1378 readers
45 users here now

A tech news sub for communists

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A blog post I found in response to Cory Doctorow taking a pro-LLM stance in a recent post of his.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Good response. It seems to me that both parties here don't really have fully coherent arguments. There is indeed a tech-libertarian bent to the arguments made by Cory Doctorow, which is not always compatible with a how a Marxist analysis would approach this topic. On the other hand, the critique also seems to stray too far into moralism and the idea of expressing your ethics through consumption, which, again, is not the dialectical-materialist outlook. In fact it has somewhat of a superstitious feel to it, like you are incurring "bad karma" by using certain products.

For example: In the piece they mention using What's App being problematic because Meta is problematic. That is a moralistic argument. A more practical reason why you shouldn't use What's App is security and data privacy - backdoors for intelligence agencies, and the fact that companies like Google, Meta or Apple are embedded with the security state. And it depends on what you use it for. Context matters. Using it discuss revolutionary organizing - maybe not a great idea; using it for a parent discussion group about your kid's school - probably fine. It's not so much what you use but how you use it.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah there are strange takes on both sides. Doctorow for example talks about liberating LLMs and his act of liberation is just... using a local model. Normal people cannot liberate LLMs because asidr from the extremely high level of expertise, it requires a bonkers amount of resources. As such the only thing adjacent to liberation that is happening right now is the release of Chinese open source models. No one gives a fuck about Mistral, Trinity or Llama. But Doctorow does not get into the details of this liberation.

Tante's post on the other hand also has soms good bits. Purity testing is an idealistic distraction but purity testing is often used as a strawman to distract from what he called negative externalities. But the part about Omelas is just crazy. Who reads that story and concludes that the correct choice to walk away?

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's only through ML the contradictions are sublimated ie the solution to privatised control is not to unsocialise the labour but to socialise control of the means of production as an extension of socialised labour... which is why China is winning whereas the best West has to offer to counter what they consider "corporatism" is limitinv - either anti-AI artisanal variety of reaction or "pro-AI" but some version of what Doctorow has to offer as a solution - ie individualised "emancipation" (and I still think your article was a good share)

[–] darkernations@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I used to consider marxism-leninism as anti-moralism, and anti-purity/anti-dogma but I am not so sure now. Now I wonder if we just have a different set of morals and dogma - a scientific one

https://redsails.org/aristocratic-marxism/