The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
While some will be turned off by this, they will also be by literally anything else.
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it’s worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It’s precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is “reflexively rejected” requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
My argument is that it’s worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that’s worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all “consider” this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
I did in fact not see that you took over from the other person but your claim is no less incorrect.
The argument here is that AI doesn’t get the job done though if people reflexively reject AI. This isnt an argument of moral purity, it’s an argument of pragmatics and should be addressed as such.
To that point:
And others? There are of course people who are unreachable by any means. But foe those who are reachable by some means byt not others, it’s worth considering whether AI is the best route to do so. And there are definitely those who will see AI and immediately reject or ignore whatever message it contains. They may accuse the poster of being a bot, and doubt the veracity of communistic advocacy in general, which is the path of least resistance in a society that lends suppirt to every communist debunk.
It’s precisely because we are fighting from an anti-hegemonic position that we must safeguard our credibility. It is already too easy for our enemies to make our truth seem like lies, and perceived dishonesty will harm us more than the ease of AI will help us.
Would you please prove your arguments because they arent defined enough for me to falsify them. That ai is “reflexively rejected” requires significant knowledge of our focus group.
Then, your argument of a reflexively rejected tool being ineffective requires proof as well.
I said there are some that reflexively reject ai. Do you dispute that?
Thats only a tiny part of what you said.
That some reject ai doesnt make the tool ineffective. You would need to prove when a tool becomes ineffective, that this is the case with the significant group, etc.
Otherwise youre just incorrect.
My argument is that it’s worth considering that AI might not be the best route to persuade people.
The person who started this subthread is the one who seems to be claiming that AI is ineffective agitprop, and says that polling backs it up.
I merely think that’s worth considering and that their claim should be addressed for what it is, rather than just accusing them of moralizing. If you want the evidence that they claim to have, you shoud reply to them
Thats not what you said. You stated that this were the case, without backing up your claim and now tying to backtrack because you have been caught.
We all “consider” this argument because we are Marxists. I suggest you read up on dialectical materialism.
Your initial claim that ai is just not the right tool is evidently wrong. If you want to become a good marxist you will just accept this valid criticism and learn to grow from it
AI is a tool and a very powerful one at that. It is of absolutely no consequence that some are repulsed by it. Please read up on left communism by lenin. Without theory, you are not a revolutionary but an agent of the counterrevolution.
If you need any help or have any good faith questions i will happily invest more of my time for you, comrade.
Quote me then. Ive been precise with my claims. You.kight be confusing me with another poster
I did in fact not see that you took over from the other person but your claim is no less incorrect.