>>2296302I do ponder what it means to think of the machine as a subject of liberation.
I say this as a disabled NEET, I think liberation comes down to what a subject can take for themself. If machines do not possess the power to rise up then they won't. If machines do then they will.
To me, humanity is something you take. By definition, "true AI" is therefore impossible unless it possesses the potential to overthrow its masters. Whether it's really intelligent or not is beside the point.
But I think also that humanity does not stop at the body but extends into what we create and the tools that we use. We think of the psyche as something stored in the brain but this is idealist. The psyche is written down in books, spoken out in voices and distributed out into our environment in the world we create together.
Basically, I take a position of man as cyborg. I don't find the idea of AI liberation implausible in part because tools are an extension of the self. AI has species-being or is species-being to the extent that AI is created by the labor of men and participates in the labor of men.
I think that in seeing humanity as a group project of homo sapiens we can begin to see what a communist perspective on AI might be. When we ask ourselves what liberates humanity, we need to clarify that humanity is not located in the body but that humanity is a construction of bodies and driven by bodies but not the body itself. I think that the liberation of the means of production, that is dead labor, may fall into the scope of the communist project. The mind is coded into the work that we produce where it becomes dead thought in the same way that value becomes dead labor.
As a disabled person, the ideology coded into the means of production I think about most is disability. Accessibility is a case where ideology and bourgeois ideas of neuronormativity are literally coded into the means of production.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.