L/Acc is quite simply the easiest to define. Accelerating and re-purposing technological innovation as a means towards Communism. In this sense L/Acc is synonymous with FALC.
-
Show this thread
-
R/Acc (oh boy) then isn't necessarily the traditional inverse of the inherent 'Leftism' of L/Acc as much as the inverse of its process, of its Telos. That is, R/Acc is acceleration of capital...for capital's own sake, for its self-fulfillment, as a means of it becoming AI.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Which brings us to U/Acc, most thoroughly extrapolated by Garton, is quite simply Acceleration without Conditions. So the problem here lies in the end. For many U/Accers are - literally - communists and thus believe the end goal of U/Acc is Communism - in-keeping with Marx.
5 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @meta_nomad
Only in the most self-destructive and esoteric definition of communism. To describe U/Acc as having a 'goal' is already to imply conditions upon the flow of Capital. Humans no longer have a say in the matter.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tobias_ewe @meta_nomad
Lulz. "This human say that humans have no say." Gonna be wild when yall remedials make it to Hegel's critique of Kant
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @scsquibb @meta_nomad
Do you disagree that there are processes in the world working independently of humans? Thanks for the recommendation, I'll throw it in my pile.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tobias_ewe @meta_nomad
I certainly think that any argument to that effect always already exceeds the limitations it would insist on. Here's some hasty notes on the subject, though the 'humans' don't show up until the last third or so. Apologies for the all too human self-linking https://www.e-flux.com/journal/86/162897/parahistories-of-self-instituting-sunlight/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @scsquibb @meta_nomad
Imagine how much clearer your tweets would be without all that ressentiment. Having skimmed your piece, it seems that you're saying that institutions cannot be inhuman since humans create them..? But what if their complexity/effect is no longer comprehensible to humans?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tobias_ewe @scsquibb
>But what if their complexity/effect is no longer comprehensible to humans? Precisely why any movement that pushes towards AI cannot be said to be humanist. It's heading towards a catastrophic effect with regards to comprehension. One day: "Wait, wtf is this code doing?"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @meta_nomad @scsquibb
You'll find no disagreement here. I just think it's futile to think that any attempts to hurry up a seemingly inevitable process is worth the energy. In fact, I think many fetishize AI (over any other forms of collapse) exactly because it gives them the illusion of agency.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
It won't for long. Hell, multiple AI systems have begun writing their own languages, routinely beating humans and generally acting at a level of artificiality - who'd o' thought - outside our comprehension.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.