I guess I don’t understand the correlation between banning speech that hurts no one, (a computer does not have feelings, nor is it sentient) and mutual aid? What barriers are you trying to collectively overcome by not allowing folks to discuss the benefits, risks and/or negatives of AI in our lives? It feels akin to someone telling me global warming and climate change arnt real so I should fuck off, I don’t belong, that speech is banned.

Anarchism is older than AI, I guess that’s where I feel the shift, and I only feel it here. Being new to lemmy, these two Incorporated ideas, I’ve never seen together before.

Side tangent, so you know where i am coming from. My definition of Anarchism stems from the early 90’s punk scene. In the late 90s, I was taught some of my computer literacy from a man who once hacked the KKK website back when, and made a mockery of it, told me he held the domain for so many months. His probation wouldn’t even allow him access to a land line it was absurd. He showed me how to use IRC, and I thought it was incredible, and glorious. That was freedom, of course until the power caught on. Even then, we persist.

I don’t understand how discussing the dangers of AI is withholding anyone’s freedom, nor do I understand how banning the speech is mutual aid.

I guess I can understand you want to protect your group of folks from people constantly questioning something you strongly believe in. But my previous questions stand. If you are up to it, feel free to enlighten me, I am an old goat these days, and I really am curious.

Edit, I guess I never thought of mutual aid as anything more than helping your neighbors and community physically, I never saw mutual aid as protecting thoughts. I guess if you reframe the definition to also protecting thoughts, and beliefs, I can see how you would consider this mutual aid, as you’re trying to protect your group from bombardment of arguing on the topic. I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to define it in such way, but I can respect it. My goal isn’t to seek argument, but to be informed. I only asked here because the topic came up, I generally ignore the AI conversations, The idea of banning speech just, should always be looked at speculatively, generally, the folks who are banning speech aren’t the good guys, as history tells. But sometimes it’s proper, is it proper here? I don’t know, and of course, I don’t think it’s up for you or me to decide, but rather collectively.

Personally I am super aware AI can be used to manipulate and persuade large swaths of people. The potential for abuse is easy for me to see. While it is a neat tool, I was more fascinated with fungi and the intelligence new science is finding within it today, than I am with algorithms and other non tanglible things. I am very cautious of my privacy, and not very tech savvy anymore, as its gotten more complicated.

This is where the fear, for me, of AI comes in. As our government swings more fascist here where I live, I’m weary of anyone making large promises of it’s benefits without questions, and I only commented because I have these thoughts, and then see in a conversation on the topic, people saying it’s not anarchist and speech questioning a specific technology should be banned. A technology usually funded by billionaires, or upper class folks who don’t understand working class struggle. The comment to ban speech on the negatives of AI just set off mad flags for me, so I thought I’d ask for more clarification.

I see. So your method of arguing is to label anyone whom you disagree with as “right-wing liberals” and you don’t intend on having a genuine conversation.