I did read the whole article, it feels rambling, vague, and incoherent, with full of these classic talking points.

Like congratulations, in talking about AI, you somehow managed to shoehorn in - unhoused people, MAGA, labour value, worker solidarity, migration, the normalization of violence… you write like a tweaker.

I am autistic, and expecting me to prefer asking people to do things and building community, instead of being fine with solitariness and the tools that help me achieve it, feels a bit ableist tbh.

The right loves those patterns because they confirm their prejudices: Ask an image generator for a picture of two people kissing and you most often get a heterosexual couple, often white. Because that’s what the training data looks like. That makes “AI” perfect for creating the form of idealized, fictional “past” that fascists love to allude to (“make America great again“), a past that never existed but that needs to be saved or restored (we’ll get back to that later).

It depends which AI you ask, no? Ask AI made in a mostly white country, you’re going to get pictures of mostly white people. Ask AI made in a mostly Asian country, it’ll be mostly Asian people.

This same dilemma came up with search engines. Everyone complained that “doctor” in Google Image search showed mostly white doctors. Except if you made the same search in Weibo, in showed mostly Asian doctors.

Same goes for heterosexual couples, it’s just what’s more common.

I’m starting to get the impression a lot of this anti-AI push is coming from Russia and China, the way it’s being framed as an “anti-West” thing. Because the chips for it are coming from the West. It’s just like vaccines, and how a lot of the anti-vaccine propaganda was coming from Russia and China. Because they need to make the thing that’s saving the world look bad.

I’m not saying AI is saving the world. But a “fascist artifact”? Come on. That’s classic Russian propaganda hyperbole.