Why Did Guattari Think Everybody Wants Fascism?

An explanation and summary of Félix Guattari's classic "Everybody Wants to Be a Fascist" essay.
If you think this essay is cool, you should check out ‪@schizoanalyticOnion‬ 's analysis of it too!
• Paper of the Month #2 ...
====================
Original Text: punishedfelix.com/2024/02/03/...
Discord: / discord
Patreon: / punishedfelix
Itch.io: punishedfelix.itch.io/

[@PunishedFelix]

Attention: I've already been seeing outright fascist propaganda in the comments, be aware that I will be deleting these posts since I'm not going to allow this video's comment section to be a transmission point of fascist ideology.

[@paultapping9510]

good call. wrt to Nostalgia and fascism. Just look at MAGA for an irl example, it's their stock in trade. The 'Again' is so telling.

[@PunishedFelix]

You have good insight here. I need to figure out a good way to condense this into a video and use it as a way to explain the whole regression-vs-the-future theme that Guattari pushes so much in his essays. Maybe throwing in a few other authors for fun. I think it might be a really good way to ground that idea in an active political situation.

[@paultapping9510]

@PunishedFelix christ. That other convo was exhausting! I'd be very interested in seeing that video, I was fairly sure it was a concept I'd seen kicking about academic circles but now I come to google it, it seems perhaps not. Either way, it's a concept I'd be interested in seeing fleshed out. In a similar vein to Guattari, you can, I think, draw parallels between the regression to from the more collectivist-leaning postwar consensus to the aggressively individualist neo-liberalism of today with the decline in the presence, and the presentation of, The Future within culture. The Death of The Future sounds very melodramatic, but is not entirely inaccurate!

[@PunishedFelix]

Oh man, this sounds awesome. I'm curious do you have any book suggestions on what lead you're thinking of? I was thinking of Capitalist Realism but I only read a bit of it. I should take a look and develop my own interpretation, it would be interesting to see! I wonder if I can plug this into crip time, too. That would ground it heavily in a temporal relationship with the body. Expressing the relationship between crip and industrial time in the future also gives us a way to project the future progression of the relationship between capitalism and our bodies. I actually wrote the script for that disability thing I announced back in December but I haven't published it yet (I'm going to be revisiting it soon so I can get it out there, don't worry. its on my site if you want to read it though) because its mostly just me talking and I feel like I needed to add more sources before I can publish it on my channel. But it explores this idea that disability is formed by a sort of circuit of desire that is assumed to be an enclosed structural loop-action but in the case of disabled people is "open" and causes the flows to deterritorialize. It then discusses how disability is directly formulated by capitalist social relations, especially labor, but really all aspects of living, and how this produces ableist machines. Its more an introduction than an in-depth analysis of these processes which I continue to molecularize on... in my opinion, if you are still at your heart an ableist you are a fascist. this is all very very interesting... Might be getting a little manic but I gotta write this all down in my notes lol

[@TriphexCorporation]

What qualifies as fascist propaganda, and if it's so dangerous why are you warning us about it (rather than just deleting it) and thus spreading the meme? Before I was just vibing with the video, now I wonder if the people who you labeled and deleted might have been making good points. Maybe they're leftists you don't like, maybe they're normie centrists - not like I can go decide for myself since you did it for me. I have nothing but the word of a stranger who I now find sus because I've been falsely labelled before and it's a deja vu moment that instantly makes me disregard anything you have to say. You're a very talented video creator and essayist but I believe there's a reason you fell so easily for "AI bad" and it's because you're steeped in tribalism and see enemies all around you. Honest suggestion, not because I'm super invested in you doing well but because I don't need more future enemies: Work on the instinct that leads you to label things and people because it will keep you trapped forever in a bubble and lead to conflict with people who are not actually your enemies.

[@RainerRilke3]

Man, huge respect for having the (I'm not gonna say bravery cause I feel that language is a huge part of the problem really) maturity to just come up and say "Hey, I was kinda wrong about this, I got carried away and now I reconsidered stuff so yeah". You're a great person Felix and I really like your content, I try to share it around as much as I can. Hope you're doing great. Love, Rainer.

[@PunishedFelix]

Love you too Rainer! Glad to see you around! Honestly this whole process has been me screwing up, learning and moving forward. Getting into Guattari made me mature as an individual because trying to figure this stuff out as an amateur has really challenged me and my previous notions...

[@TriphexCorporation]

Yee. It's the reason I continued watching the video to the end.

[@MurderWho]

ah, i see. So its like when someone discovers that the reason catholicism resonates with them isnt because of spirituality, but because they have a breeding kink and they mistook their desire for that as a resonance with the idea that all sex should be for procreation. (. . . this is a real recurring phenomena, btw, and for some reason, specifically with catholicism rather than other religions with the same notions on sex). The unrealized function of desire becomes the lever by which control is justified and demanded, which can only happen through alienation from desire to the point of not comprehending it as desire. The lever is then operated to further repress self and group expression, which inadvertently produces a stronger desire economy which can be discovered and leveraged in a viscious cycle. So the refusal of the dominant paradigm of continuing increase of poverty is shifted into the refusal of, ex: immigrants and queer people, which creates a further isolated group that is recuperated into the dominant paradigms rather than refusing them, and partitions the subject-groups as a whole into smaller and smaller groups, (ex: queer people and queerphobes not mixing much), which thus become less able to communicate semiotics with the whole, which leads to further alienation from the self and from desire as a result of the group-semiotics being fractured and less capable of expressing well-formulated and uncoded desire.

[@MurderWho]

Been looking at the world with this lens for the past few days, trying to critique it. Not Guattari, I can't critique him without having read him, (I should, I know), but my understanding of it. Another example I see is that of the desire for bodily purity and bodily control in modern fasicst spaces; No-fap comes from a place of desire for bodily mastery, but it recuperates into ordinary misogyny that says that women are responsible for men lusting after them, and thus into the rest of that particular misogyny envelope. I think this lens would also explain a little bit of a mystery for me: that of monolithic social dominance order. It is a noted sociological phenomenon both that people perceive a monolithic social dominance order, and that people are more likely to fall in with a social dominance order. What that means is, basically, if you're a racist, you're more likely to be a misogynist. If you're a misogynist, you're more likely to be queerphobic. If you're queerphobic, you're more likely to be ableist. And in general, if you fall along one line of societal oppression, you are more likely to fall on the repressive side of every societal oppression. So there are relatively fewer queer-friendly misogynists, and relatively fewer Jew-friendly ableists. The social dominance forms a monolith of misogyny, queerphobia, ableism, etc. all mixed together in a great big pile of stinky. While it is easy to see why this is the case when you practically study any one area of oppression and how it hooks into others, (there's always obvious hook-ins and they all reinforce each other), it's not so obvious from a philosophical viewpoint why that would be. If it all stems from desire that is recuperated into a desire economy, then what we're seeing is the long-term equilibrium state of many self-recycling desire economies eventually finding transformative ways to hook-in to the social dominance; the alternative is that the social dominance dissembles the smaller desire economies and they cease to be. An example of that is the incel community, and how they're currently reinventing phrenology, and obsessing over each other's foreheads; while the results are impressively racist and misogynist, it doesn't survive contact with spending time in real life at all, or in extrinsic groups at all, so the innovations it brings to the space of misogyny and developing a mythology of attractiveness in men doesn't spread or reinforce the social dominance monolith, nor does it absorb very much from the monolith. This is also an example of a micro-creation of desire recuperation, demonstrating how it can happen without "conspiracy" or intention; ultimately, incels decided on phrenology not because some politician whipped them into a frenzy or because someone sold them a book, but it arose somewhat organically, (naturally influenced by the phrenology of the past, which was specifically due to many incel communities ties to nazis, of course), but because of a shared and unacknowledged desire to blame their lack of popularity on something beyond their control; the lack of popularity itself being not exactly real, but a construction of unacknowledged desire which is repressed by notions of masculinity/strength leading them away from emotional development, and leading them to believe in an innate "popularness" that they don't have, that would enable tender human connection, rather than the labour of . . . tender human connection. Which, if asked directly if that's what they want, they would refuse that they desire it, even while lamenting that they do not have it when it is expressed in the words of sex and (power in) relationships. But with this line of thought, I am put to the difficulty of understanding why or how capitalism successfully molecularizes the desire economies without dismantling them. There is a missing stage that I can understand clearly when studying examples, but do not have a philosophical underpinning for, and which the rhetoric that arises from this lens would seem to contradict: surely capitalism would accelerate the recuperations into dominant paradigms, and molecularization would only be left to the non-dominant paradigms? (In this sense, I am under the impression that molecularization is both intended to mean a breakdown of the larger structure, and a building of the smaller structure; from skyscrapers to molecules, and from atoms to molecules, as it were. I suspect this is a misreading and may be where my gap in understanding is coming from) I suppose I do need to sit down and read Guattari, then.

[@sacrumlaurous]

man i love your content, it's so rare to see people talk about guattari outside of cas or deleuze in general.thank you!!

[@sadiyashiraj]

“Individuals do not communicate directly to other people but rather participate in a transhumance chain of organs that is formed and enters into conjunction with semiotic chains and an intersection of material flows.” That line is the most succinct and powerful explanation of Guattari’s ideas I have ever heard, even in trying to read Guattari myself hahaha. Thank you! You are doing the lord’s work 🙏🏽

[@PunishedFelix]

That's actually his own quote. But honestly people think he's hard cuz they don't let him get to that point lol

[@tinkz2009]

Wonderful video! I always thought Guattari's analysis of sociology's compartmentalizing of fascism was more talking about *liberalism's* inclinations to differentiate fascism into distinct categories and do nothing with it. Then again, I haven't read it a second time, so I may have missed something in my initial reading. The last part of his essay rings true to this day, as you graciously point out. I will now call fascists thanatophiles :D

[@PunishedFelix]

He doesn't specify liberalism at that part in the essay but you may be right now that I think about it.

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

You’re definitely right: fascism as it exists in the contemporary world has morphed along the continuum Guattari mentioned into neoliberalism. Those neoliberals then encourage the development of fascism (Pinochet in Chile, for example) to help promote global hegemony.

[@francescocerasuolo4064]

ANOTHER BANGER IS OUT????!!

[@herbertdaly5190]

LLMs can be used for good...they just probably won't be...because of the dynamics they are subject to...in particular: FUNDING!

[@PunishedFelix]

you know you're in the fun timeline when Open AI reversed their stance on military use of their technology like as if that wasn't their intention from the very beginning Just remember - money isn't everything. I think there are people in the world with the ability to build LLMs who do not only use that knowledge to get a paycheck.

[@simonag.8587]

hi ! cool video ! i wanted to ask : how does Guattarri differ from W Reich's explanation of fascism as a consequence of sexual repression or frustration (if im understanding him correctly) ? how did he feel about that freudo-marxist school in general ? i know that u touched on this in this video but im very new to psychoanalysis so i didn't understand everything. thank you !

[@PunishedFelix]

Tbh I don't know enough about Reich to answer your question but Schizoanalytic 0nion could probably help you.

[@guattarian]

Fascism is a feedback cycle. I've written a bit about this, but I feel like cybernetics allow the macro passages of the repression of desire to get eased a little _because_ of the ‘cyborg’ coinage, the web persona, and whatnot. It's like... getting rid of what he calls the “models of desire” allows oneself to branch out in a reconfiguration of the desiring machine's position inside the fluxional arrangement. Partaking in molecular fascism through cyberspace feels like becoming a fascist - something that you wouldn't be casually able to do inside intersocietal face-to-face, physical spaces for many reasons. It's beyond power expression, but communication. Don't know if I made myself clear, but whatever. Just a thought. Thank you for the amazing video! Keep up with the good work. Kudos 🤍

[@PunishedFelix]

I've thought about this comment for a few days and I wonder if what you're saying is related to the "whitification" of people through the anonymity of the internet. I am increasingly interested in the relationship between the white man faciality machine and fascism but I haven't finished ATP yet. But I think its especially relevant here... the internet captures the faces and landscape of the real world in a virtual setting that allows all these things to role-play it out, but I haven't explored the idea in depth so I'm just kinda spitballing here.

[@guattarian]

@@PunishedFelix Oh, surely. I think the internet allows disavowing to be a constant (whereas in public you allegedly keep a distinct composure to tame desire [and even so, public assault of various forms is begrudgingly normal]) in its particular propagation of desire as a whole; and it's interesting to grasp these as analogous to arousal, because you tend to fall into the common role of religious guilt, depravity as incumbed evil in Church doctrine, gender politics and sexual martyrs, etc. There are a lot of industries these days that stand clear more than ever because of unleashed desire in cyberspace and profit from it accordingly. It's not hard to see why desire then becomes self-destructive, since the internet allows information to be highly disregarded very quickly. I've been working on an essay (?) of sorts about that for a while now. Just wanted to check in if my schizo-barfing made sense -- if you ever want to read it, I'd love to share. Thanks!

[@criscrypto]

fantastic

[@mmmicroplastics]

can you explain 3:57 please that shit went directly over my head 🙈

[@PunishedFelix]

Basically, Guattari is saying that "desire" and "repression" are not things in-of-themselves. He says there is no desire by itself, no repression by itself, but rather they are parts of a system that works together to produce things. When he's criticizing psychoanalytic castration, he's saying that the whole concept is based on abstractions of desire and repression, and so they result in reactionary attitudes. So, Guattari thinks that operating on the idea of psychoanalytic castration is reactionary, because instead of being based on what is actually being produced, it's based on abstractions describing this process of production.

[@TriphexCorporation]

Glad to see you don't think AI is inherently bad! The discipline of cybernetics does have a history of persecution coming from the left and the reason is obvious: Without the need for workers one can make revolution impossible and simply allow the masses to die off. However, that's just one of a literally infinite number of things that can be done with AI, robotics, and cybernetics. It's like saying guns are bad and leftists shouldn't use them, and then you just get steamrolled by the right wing militia. Tools are tools, and what the tools ultimately do is controlled by the people wielding them. If someone shuns a tool they will not reap its benefits, and neither should they, because they're too closed minded and authoritarian to deserve it.

[@PunishedFelix]

I'm friends with people who used to be in these industries and the way the capitalist apparatus connects their labor to politically evil actions is something that literally causes people to go schizophrenic. That original video was more me being concerned with alienation I think than AI.

[@TriphexCorporation]

​@@PunishedFelix I am still in that industry, though I left my previous work because I was literally building machinery of pure evil. I won't pretend what I'm doing now is entirely free from the possibility of criticism but I can sleep at night. It's clear to me that only a political solution can work. I believe the more money/power/resources an entity has, the more their use of AI should be restricted. Regular citizens should have the most unfettered access with the least rules, since it should be a tool for helping society not making it worse to benefit a few people like me that already own the means of production.

[@PunishedFelix]

I really wish more people knew what was going on but too much of it is locked behind closed doors. So hard to explain to people outside tech why things are so messed up. I'm just a lowly Java developer but even I got burned by how messed up the health insurance industry is, literally triggered my psycho episodes in 2021. I hate what these people are doing to us

[@TriphexCorporation]

@@PunishedFelix Although I am technically a CEO it's a startup and I don't take private investors so at the moment the only reason I can afford healthcare is because my husband works a union job. I'll never oppose unions because A I'm dating half my employees (poly. was dating before it was a company.) and B Unions are the only reason I'm not dead. About 70% of the military and government (not talking about congress people but employees) would be part of the resistance if everyone was laid off en-masse. I believe instead we'll see different labor groups strategically disenfranchised slowly over time and inadequate social benefits to save just enough people to prevent an uprising. It's not at all set in stone, but it will require an ideology that appeals to every sector of society to defeat. Dismantling that kind of machine requires workers, soldiers, scientists, administrators, and even financiers - who bring their own dangers since they generally try to exert control. The challenge is developing an ideology that can appeal to both them and ordinary people AND lead in a positive/healthy direction for society. I don't believe anything but the deep state is actually capable of fighting entrenched corporate power anymore, (ironic since it is their part-time servant) and so it has to be convinced that it's a matter of national security - however, that also leads to the imminent danger of a totalitarian takeover of an entirely different kind. Am I missing some other solution?

[@exlauslegale8534]

Militant Oedipus = Slavoj Žižek ?

[@ikengaspirit3063]

Well, if literally everybody wants it what's so bad about it and how can commies claim to be working for the proletariat if the proletariat doesn't wants communism. Either this paper is pro-Fascist as that's the conclusion if it is true over traditional communist assumptions without completely dissolving all communist assumptions or it is wrong.

[@PunishedFelix]

The video does a good job answering these questions :) Everyone wants fascism because the desire for fascism exists everywhere, because it comes from a reaction to dominant meanings. It's bad though because it forms a self destructive death spiral - it codes a new mode of dominant meanings, that represses even more and the cycle continues. Guattari criticizes communist representation politics thru stalinism because it produces a dominant meaning that is separate from the desire of the actual masses. In the case of Stalinism the party machine lost progressive power over time, losing control of the narrative and destabilizing. Guattari is not defending fascism, he's explaining why it seems to be everywhere despite it supposedly being defeated.

[@werrkowalski2985]

Well, that's a very broad and vague definition of fascism that sounds more like something coopted to elicit emotions to motivate people to agree with Guattari's ideology and join "his struggle", it's worse than Eco's. If fascism is everywhere then it's nowhere, if everyone is a fascist nobody is a fascist. Also, to reject the "sociological" approach and categorization doesn't escape categorization, one is just entering into the fascism vs non-fascism dichotomy, that is still categorization. You also haven't escaped this at all, for example you conceptualize A. H. as "just another racist white guy", that is a very presentist characterization that would have sounded ridiculous to anybody from Europe during WWII or even now, the far more accurate idea of "a German supremacist" is how he was seen. Here all of the various ideas of suprematism and domination and all distinct ethnicities are lumped into one homogeneous category of "white racist" for the purpose of politicization, of gaining power. And while of course, one could make generalizations and look for the common elements the point is that while supposedly being against totalizing categogies you and Guattari collapse all of the many categories into broader, and thus more homogeneous categories such as fascism or white racism. Having fewer more broad categories doesn't sound like something that promotes plurality. Taken at face value as a critique it is interesting but as a project of liberation from fascism, or reactionaryism, or all kinds of totalizing structures it is the most utopian form of anarchism. Landian accelerationism is actually more consistent because Land took his project to the point where the molecuralization destroys the human and the human is replaced with something post-human and anti-human that is only driven by basic drives, free from all of the imposed structures of meaning that keep everything that is human from blowing apart into pieces. The self is also, after all, composed of parts that are connected by various conceptualizations and abstractions, we have rules that we decide to follow etc.

[@PunishedFelix]

I think you're looking at this too atomized. I don't think he's trying to escape categorization, but rather try to construct new structures to better understand these relations. Guattari's critique makes more sense when you realize that he is trying to dismantle individualization - hence why he emphasizes the difference between "pleasure" and "desire". To be honest I should have included some of the after text discussion because it makes this clearer. When Guattari says that "everybody wants to be fascist" I think he's talking more about how the "trans-human chain of organs" that he talks about is transmitting fascism - so everyone can be varying degrees of fascist, because fascism is not just a thing you "are" but a thing that passes through you. What Guattari and I mean by saying that H was not anyone particularly special is that, while he had the unique individual traits that allowed him to achieve his role, the trans-human chain of organs is also a sociological apparatus at large that produced the conditions for a H to exist in the first place. His emphasis is placed on the fact that H the individual is not important. He's not saying that these things exist in the broad categories of "fascism" or "white racism" but rather that the machines of fascism and white racism *produced* H, and in that sense, he is not particularly special. The system would have produced an H regardless. Land's project is one of unbounded deterritorialization. I'm not really sure if it's that simple. Also, it seems that even in the 1990's quite a few people were skeptical of Land's interpretation of fascism. But I'm not informed enough on the subject to form my own opinion.

[@werrkowalski2985]

@@PunishedFelix What does he mean by individualization? To me individualization is when a thing differentiates itself, "from a homogeneous mass", is Guattari against plurality? I doubt that, I always thought D&G were for individualization. Does he mean he wnats to collapse the difference between the individual and the collective/the society? It may be what he meants generally (I know this likely involves a lot of specific D&G terminology), you said he talks about "trans-human chain of organs", we live in this kind of semiotic sphere where how we conceptualize things is influenced by the language we use, by the society and so on. Ok, so it sounds like a kind of a sociological vision where the individual is a product of the society, that sounds kind of marxist. One can make this argument, that such things are a product of the society as a whole, or some system. As I understand it he wants a total liberation from such systems, and hence I called it utopian anarchism. It's not clear how would it look like, it's not clear how an individual could construct a semiotic system that isn't influenced by the system or systems he is submerged in, and how can one build non-totalizing categories. For example I'm still seeing the fascism vs non-fascism dichotomy, and what would it mean to struggle against fascism if not to struggle against individual fascists? I said I believe Land is more consistent because Land is opposed to what he calls human security system, ie reterritorializing forces that keep things together. Land recognized that humans will always try to resist the deterritorializing forces, for example he writes that humans are monkeys who are intelligent enough to be able to revolt against the laws of nature, and these laws are the basic drives such a drive to expansion, reproduction, survival of the fittest etc. This places limitations and so humans are essentially doomed to become obsolete and be replaced by things like superintelligent AI. If liberation from these territorializing systems such as society, common language, common conceptual space etc is what somebody wants then it is hard to see how this can be achieved without the collapse of the society and destruction of the human. My understanding is that Land's fundamental critique of fascism was that it is simply too holistic, it's about one people, one voice, one law, one leader, one nation, one hope, one vision while he is about the many, dissolution, divergence, fragmentation, collapse. Lastly, what do you think about social engineering? You seem to have said that Guattari doesn't quite believe that everyone is a fascist and that it is something that was caused by the society/system, but the ultra-liberal narrative is that if everyone has a fascist in him then we should socially engineer the society and people need to be controlled because else they become fascists.

[@PunishedFelix]

I don't really have the time to reply to everything but I think you have a fundamental misreading of DG if you don't understand how plurality and individualism are not only separate but opposing ideas. Individualism is a process of subjectification that produces serialized individuals, plurality is about bypassing the structures produced by individualism. When DG say they're multiple in ATP they're saying they're a collection of assemblages that extend far beyond their individual I'm not a fan of Land so I can't comment on that.

[@CEOofGameDev]

0:28 "AI and LLMs are just tools they aren't inherently bad" Not sure about this, tbh. Is a tool that is specifically designed with the express purpose to displace workers in the name of capital gain not a appalling employment of human effort to begin with? Isn't the very development of these models already a deployment of previous technology for the harming of people and society in the name of corporate gains? Here's a similar example: Is the atom bomb inherently bad? Is it *just* a tool with no underlying moral implications? Has any part of it's development and creation not been conducted under the shadow of the murderous impulses of the forces that be? Can one really say that both of these things aren't inherently bad when their final uses were already baked into these tools from the very point of conception? Anyway. My point being: fuck 'em robots.

[@PunishedFelix]

IDK, LLMs and nuclear weapons exist the way they do currently because of the social structures that composed them. I also disagree that LLMs were designed from the start as a vehicle of capitalist gain but rather were exploited for its usefulness, like most technological advancements (idk if the same could be said for nukes though, they're kind of an extreme example). Fun fact - a lot of totally innocuous stuff ends up being used by the military, but obviously we know that these models were developed for purposes detached from that, and in fact its this process of taking completed computer-prole produced work and having some company owner applying it to something nefarious for profit without the original producer's knowledge which marks the nature of the production of this abusive technology in the modern day. Another thing that happens a lot is people try to develop a revolutionary new technology, it can't sell commercially, so its parts are sold to other companies to try to recooperate the losses, which results in these technologies re-crystalizing into morally questionable operations. The morality isn't seated in the subject of the object itself but the subject-groups that compose its relations with other things. Especially in the case of LLMs where the main issue right now is who owns, trains and distributes them. LLMs could easily be a huge revolution to post-media too as long as they are not just copying ChatGPT and other commercial models and thus copying the internal capitalist structures inside of them. I agree with my point in the last video where I said that the alienation between the political subject and the ChatGPT machine is a serious problem, but I think again that has largely to do with the commercial distribution of these technologies literally trained on 4Chan, not the technology itself. "fuck 'em robots" is inherently a reactionary approach, we should be using their productive potentials to pave the way for the future instead of regressing into the past.

[@CEOofGameDev]

@@PunishedFelix didn't read, but I agree 100%

[@thishandleistacken]

It's helped me learn to program in Python, it's helped me study university level physics, history, astrophysics, philosophy, psychology and cross religious studies and much more. OpenAI or any other companies do not represent what LLMs and the schematics of neural networks are capable of doing. They are companies, not the tech. Equating the two is bad faith and regressive. If you don't like using it that's fine but don't attack those who do if they use it without causing harm to anyone or threatening anyone's jobs. I'm very very poor and AI has opened up academic learning in a way I've never been able to before outside of piracy. Also it may be worth understanding the massive benefits of atomic research to our current understanding the universe itself and the development of other tech which has not just done things like create cleaner power than coal but done things like create MRIs and medicinal research (two things which AI also can help develop even further) Edit: if you really didn't read the creator's response to you... but still wanted to leave your own very biased opinions... maybe relisten to the video and contemplate what authoritarian mindsets are

[@PunishedFelix]

I will say I am pretty concerned about people not reading the source material because AI summarizes in a way that is alienated from human political interaction (which was my main critique in the video) but that is a problem with alienation, not AI; in combination with piracy and other things, AI has a lot of potential to destabilize the power structures that force people knowledgeable in STEM to have their labor extracted for horrible purposes. A lot of people end up going schizophrenic because they find out how their labor is used.

[@thishandleistacken]

@@PunishedFelix Yeh I'm concerned others will do that as well which is why i use it as a jumping off point for further research whether pirated or freely available. Sadly so much academia is paywalled these days but by being resourceful I combine all the tools at my hands be that recorded university classes on YT, Great Courses audiobooks on audiobookbay, speaking to professionals online, using sources in Wiki annotations etc. I use AI to help direct my intelllect towards each of these things and what to seek in them rather than relying on only it or only one tool. I've learned a lot more in self education over the past 15 years post university than in university and AI has greatly augmented the skills I'd already honed quite well on that front. It's sad some people will totally lose themselves in AI rather than going for a full spectrum approach to self education but it's also sad how many people do the same with university or Reddit :p I hated the AI world at first too because I was "supposed to" as a leftist but that kind of mob mentality has never served me well whenever I've caught myself doing it. I mean it's even the reason I'm as poor as I am. Several of my friends were begging me to buy a few Bitcoin when it was about 10$ a coin but my anticapitalism said no. If I had said yes I could have sold that and done much more to help my community and the cause of leftism but nope I didn't do it. I still have ethical issues with digital currencies just like I do large corperate LLMs but I try and be utilitarian and logical these days rather than blindly idealistic (well, I try, no one fully escapes the biases of their ideals)

[@cosmomari4669]

what is fascism

[@cosmomari4669]

what