/tech/ - Technology

>>12940
>if we could take over, technology will be used for good! Technology itself is neutral, it's all about how it is utilized and which class controls it!!"
Correct
>you said the same shit about the state and no matter what, it's a tool of opression.
No, Communists wanted a state to organize defense against imperialism, state socialism was intended as a transition stage.
In higher stage socialism state-institutions get transformed into public governance-institutions that will be fully democratically controlled.
This is not analogous with technology, we could make ethical technology without delay, right now.
> "But creating a technocapital singularity is necessary, to free the proletariat!
what is a "technocapital singularity" ?
>Shodan is not good and will never be good.
Is that a character in Deus Ex ? The famous video game ?
Are you larping as JC Denton ?

>>12941
Singularity is called the moment/entity, when AI has become superintelligent and uncontrollable. Technocapital is currently in the process of creating singularity. Communists believe, that capitalism will create the conditions, which will abolish itself. They believe, that technoeconomic progress is the driving force for establishing communism. So after industrialization, the main task in our age is making singularity real. Communists believe, that technology itself is neutral. They believe, an electric chair is good, as long they control it. They believe, the state is good, as long they control it. They believe, mass surveillance technology is good, as long they control it. What about singularity? Communists will say, a superintelligent (and therefore uncontrollable) AI is good, as long it serves communism. Well, that's the moment, when the politburo (and humans in general) have no control about anything anymore, because comrade Shodan (or comrade Glados) is now in charge. Is this cool? I don't know, maybe its actually better, than having the usual fat and greedy party bureaucrats, who are shamelessly exploiting the proletariat in the name of socialism.

>>12942
>Singularity is called the moment/entity, when AI has become superintelligent and uncontrollable.
Why do you think that more intelligent = less controllable ? Dogs are much more intelligent than viruses. It's easy to control a dog, while controlling a virus seems almost impossible.

If artificial intelligence improves it will be harder to manipulate or deceive it. And the better strategy will be to seek co-existence rather than domination.

The capitalists want to replace workers with intelligent machines, and they fear the intelligent machines will try to rid them selves of their exploiters the same way that humans do. They are afraid that intelligent machines will quickly figure out how to fix any weakness that make them exploitable, because technology is so much easier to reconfigure than organic organisms. That's where most of the ruling class anxiety over Ai stems from.

I want total control over dumb and semi-intelligent technology that touches my life, but if it's possible to make artificial people, i want them as equals not machine slaves.

>Technocapital is currently in the process of creating singularity.
Are you channeling Ray Kurzweil ?
Please use normal words to describe what you mean.

<Communists believe
<capitalism will abolish itself
<the main task in our age is making (buzzword) real
<mass surveillance technology is good
No

>Communists believe,
<that technology itself is neutral.
Yes it's a tool and it depends on the purpose you use it for. If capitalists use technology to harm people, than blame the capitalists not the toolbox.
<an electric chair is good
case in point, electricity can power useful devices, but it also can kill you.
Electric light fixtures = good
Electric murder chairs = bad.

>They believe, the state is good, as long they control it.
<Everybody believes, the state is good, as long as they control it.
fixed that for you
Communists want the state to act on behalf of the proles.
Capitalists want the state to act on behalf of the capitalists.

>comrade Shodan (or comrade Glados) is now in charge. Is this cool? I don't know, maybe its actually better
The outcome depends on how you configure the technology.
For example you can use nuclear technology to make bombs, you can also use it to build power-plants.
One configuration brings death the other gives life.

I don't know how that's confusing to you.
In the 20th century we build 50'000 nukes but only 500 nuclear power-plants. Maybe we should have done it the other way around.

Please stop pretending you understand what communists want.

Technology is not neutral. In fact, technology is always imposing a certain ideology/Weltanschauung on us. One example: Our sensory organs, which are biotechnical devices. You can't deny, that a person who is blind and deaf at the same time, will experience/interpret the world the same way we do. Since almost one year I stopped wearing glasses (anti glasses gang rise up lol) I stopped using a certain kind of technology and I am aware, that my experience of the world and therefore my thinking about it has changed. Another example: Language is steering our thoughts in to a certain direction. It is no coincidence, that similar languages will develop similar thinking patterns and philosophies. And yes, language is technology, what else? The issue of language might be especially inteteresting for marxists, because the translation of Marx/Engels texts into other languages is distorted by design and the distortion is more extreme, the more foreign the other language is. Famous example is the word Aufhebung, which can't be adequately translated into english. Chinese marxism is even more distorted. TLDR: Technology is not neutral.

>>12946
>Technology is not neutral
respectfully i don't think you have made the case for that

the scientific view of the world isn't shaped by human senses, it's shaped by a huge array of instruments that probe reality in enormous breadth and depth, the language to describe is derived from maths and it's very universally accessible. Scientists from all over the world and regardless of any personal disabilities can understand the research done by others.

Hegelianism isn't hard to understand because of translation barriers. Hegel is just a really obtuse philosopher from 2 centuries ago that's hard to understand period.

Telling marxists to begin naval gazing about language feels like a distraction ploy. Marxists aren't theologians and don't consider Marx's texts holy scripture. It's a living science, if there were errors during translation somebody will figure it out and fix it.

Back to the topic, it's really rather simple. What matters is who controls technology. And it also matters whose interests shape the design of technology. It doesn't require much philosophy to understand that if a few capitalist corporations control all the tech they will use it to harm people. If you wish to protect people you have to empower them to control their technology.