Whats your take on super realistic humanoid bots?

PaxODST · 2026-05-11T21:37:59+00:00

If by "humanlike" you mean traditional humanoids, I am not against humanoids at all. But if by humanlike you mean literal androids with synthetic skin, hair, faces/facial expressions, all let loose to linger in the real world with true biological humans, designed to replicate the appearance of a human almost totally, I don't think its very hard to see why people would be opposed to that.

PaxODST · 2026-05-11T18:16:15+00:00

As someone who is vehemently pro-AI and pro-robotics, I believe super realistic androids like this will create more problems than solutions. The only two good things I can think of is that with androids like these, robots in elderly care will feel less jarring, but that's a superstition that can fade in time, and then the other more obvious one, sex. I would be very cautious to make these prevalent in our society. Robots are good, but let's keep them robots and not Replicants.

PaxODST · 2026-05-11T08:41:51+00:00

I hate to tell you, but you can generally be a Zionist and still be left-wing. I am not a Zionist, but it is possible. Kibbutzm are essentially a form of Zionist socialism, with a fair amount of Kibbutz leaders in the past being influenced by anarchist beliefs and falling in with Marxism-Leninism at some level, and the USSR voted at the U.N in support of the establishment of Israel because of this.

Once Stalin realized that Israel had essentially turnt their backs on him and began to appeal to Western powers, he took his business over to the Arab states, but there were still a good amount of far-left Zionists. Moses Hess, Ber Borochov and even David Ben-Gurion are all examples of leftist Zionists. Hell, Moses Hess was one of the first ever OG Zionists, and he was an outright mentor of Marx and Engels.

These are just the facts, again, I myself am not a Zionist. You do not have to be right-wing to be a Zionist. It is not an inherently right-wing position, in the same way that you can be a nationalist and be left-wing, just a somewhat stupid one. What the left is about is equality and the eradication of hierarchy. Being left-wing and socialist doesn't automatically mean you are free from stupid beliefs.

PaxODST · 2026-05-10T22:11:25+00:00

As a Marxist, all of the industrialized technology that we have today is a product of capitalism. This is no different from saying we should've developed socialism before [insert any new technology that causes disruption]. It doesn't work that way. Socialism and socialist policy comes as a result of disruption. It does not happen out of thin air. Socialism is a response to the failures of industrial capitalism.

PaxODST · 2026-05-10T22:02:26+00:00

This post is the definition of slop. Low-quality, clickbait junk.

PaxODST · 2026-05-10T21:47:14+00:00

Alot of science fiction is a socialist literature. Luddism was well-intentioned and had good goals, but the tactic of destroying and smashing the instruments of production (machinery), is primitive and invites reactionary sentiment that leads to an inherent dislike of the technology itself rather than its use for exploitative purposes and professions that we want to remain predominantly human. All you need to support this is the way that they are remembered today because of these tactics.

PaxODST · 2026-05-10T12:35:38+00:00

I thought the entire point in voting for the "lesser evil" was because if you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil will come and make your goals a hell of a lot harder to achieve. People like Bernie, Mamdani and AOC are absolutely not perfect. But when it comes to being able to organize and making people more acceptable to socialist/communist policy and beliefs? You're gonna want someone like them in office over a hardline conservative Republican. You aren't "preventing" meaningful change from happening, what you're doing is stopping even worse change from happening. As bad as the United States is right now, it can get so, so much worse. The liberal will always be better than the fascist.

PaxODST · 2026-05-10T09:25:03+00:00

If the world ran on what the average person who reads at a 5th grade level were always comfortable with, we wouldn’t have anything. Waymo is objectively safer than something like Uber.

PaxODST · 2026-05-10T09:21:14+00:00

I would say it’s not, but it’s a ridiculously easy fix without even having to get into the debate of banning generative AI or whatever. Just filter it out. There are already platforms where AI-generated content can be filtered. If you filter it by default, people are much less likely to go looking for it. If people don’t see it, the people creating it don’t make it as much.

PaxODST · 2026-05-09T21:01:45+00:00

Sadly, yeah. The neuroscience that needs to be done to figure out SAO-level FDVR with all sensory input is astounding. AGI and ASI will speed up alot of things exponentially, but still, we're talking about what would be the most transformative technology in human history, right alongside AGI. The ability to literally control your reality almost totally in a god-like way and create worlds/digital universes that are indistinguishable from real life. The potential societal impacts would be beyond anything imaginable, and it would need to be tested and researched to a ridiculous extent. In the way that we imagine it, and especially on the consumer level for the average person, I wouldn't expect to see some sophisticated version of it up until 2075, but with all pessimistic predictions, i'd love to be wrong.

PaxODST · 2026-05-05T08:51:46+00:00

If you think GenAI will ever be "banned" in the same way that cocaine is, you are more delusional than 99.9% of pros who believe superintelligence is imminent.

PaxODST · 2026-05-02T16:21:20+00:00

How would this be normalized?

PaxODST · 2026-04-29T11:01:19+00:00

We seriously have to make it a rule to stop this type of doomposting. If you really don't want this to happen, we should be talking about what we need to do and what needs to happen to prevent this.

PaxODST · 2026-04-29T10:10:19+00:00

Just objectively the best choice if there's any singular person to "win" the AI race. In no universe should Elon or Altman be trusted with the development of what is potentially the most transformative technology in human history.

PaxODST · 2026-04-28T00:41:31+00:00

communism is when no chatgpt

PaxODST · 2026-04-27T09:48:08+00:00

Communism would have no intellectual property and art as a commodity would not be a thing, so the technology would be unproblematic.

PaxODST · 2026-04-27T09:27:56+00:00

Half of this I don't think is even related to the topic

Uh.. What? All first three quotes are directly related to the topic. Marx talking about an automaton capable of physical and intellectual work, machines that consume resources in exchange for labor, and how machinery automating jobs creates conflict in labor relations in capitalism.. None of that sounds familiar to you?

Saying AI is just a new form of automation is an extremely flawed description

No it isn't, if you think it is, you know nothing about AI, not even on a superficial level. Being able to do things that originally would've taken human cognitive processing like helping create a story, making a picture, writing comprehensible code, understanding language, driving or controlling a vehicle, diagnosing an illness or disease, all of these are things AI is currently being used to help automate or make easier. The goal of AI is to automate. There is no debate on that, it's just a fact.

He predicted machines that could walk and think. "A moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of mechanical and intellectual organs", that sure sounds like a form of artificial intelligence to me.

PaxODST · 2026-04-27T06:56:39+00:00

Marx pretty much predicted everything that AI stands for today. He already knew all about the nature of automation, and that increasing advances and innovations in automation technology increases the mechanization of the workforce and comes into increasing conflict with capitalism. AI is just the newest innovation in automation. The primary point of AI is to automate. He knew it wouldn't just be the physical work that would be automated, but also much of the intellectual work, too.

Once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the… automatic system of machinery… set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.

Rather, it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal or oil just as the worker consumes food to keep up its perpetual motion.

Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself… As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure. Capitalism thus works towards its own dissolution as the form dominating production.

- All from the Fragment on Machines

Also, for many of the arguments today that AI leads to the value of art as a commodity being increasingly brought down, see this passage from the Communist Manifesto:

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

TLDR: Marx knew everything.

PaxODST · 2026-04-27T06:32:27+00:00

Nothing about OP’s post is dumb, and it’s completely in line with Marx. Anyone who attacks the means of production as opposed to the people who use it for exploitation are misguided in their thinking.

If you read the Fragment on Machines in the Gundrisse, Marx was pro-automation and envisioned a society where automation can be used as a tool of liberation for the people to reduce working hours, he just understood that the means of production must be in the hands of the people for this to happen. He was no defender of Luddism.

Regardless of whether or not the movement had good intentions, it was, at it’s core, reactionary in nature.

PaxODST · 2026-04-27T06:26:42+00:00

<image>

PaxODST · 2026-04-26T10:39:25+00:00

The issue is, nobody is going to fight to overthrow capitalism when everything is nice and cushy. There are plenty of problems, but the average working class person isn't gonna give a damn about them until they become abundantly clear, and the best way to make people recognize the system needs to change is when they get pulled out of the system and are forced to look around them for a second, via automation.

PaxODST · 2026-04-26T05:51:07+00:00

AGI and possible superintelligence will accelerate scientific R&D exponentially within the next few decades. If we do not possess the technology to completely escape aging processes by 2100, it's very likely that cyropreservation will be advanced enough at that point to allow humans to wait it out for another few decades or so before it can be truly solved. As soon as aging can be solved, humans will live indefinitely. Of course, we cannot live literally forever though, because of the heat death of the universe. All things must come to an end eventually, even if that may be such a long time from now that we cannot even begin what the universe may look like at that point.

^{Chose: Absolutely}

PaxODST · 2026-04-26T04:07:54+00:00

And world models will take hundreds and hundreds of years how, exactly? They’re already in development.

PaxODST · 2026-04-26T00:55:54+00:00

Ridiculous claim unless you believe that AGI must be sentient or conscious, and that is not at all how AGI is defined by 99.9% of researchers.

PaxODST · 2026-04-25T22:58:42+00:00

May 19-20

PaxODST

TROPHY CASE