You are correct in your sociological observation regarding businesses
and families and workers standing up for the bosses in the family-run
companies. I worked very long (9+ years) for the Schumacher's and
Øien's ISP company before they kicked me on the street and took my key
card with my lunch payments of 14,400 NOK just to demonstrate raw power
of their family-run company. It is what happens if workers protest
against status quo in a family-run software company.
Usually the families are good, devoted religious people who want to
help society by bringing goods that the workers get paid for to produce
for them and pay for with their salary to the market.
Free Software is different, since there is no single family that rules
over Free Software Developers and who masters the payment.
Payments in Free Software are voluntarily.
Since the consumer price of Free Software is near zero, the
manufacturing cost comes naturally by those who give donations to
workers who are less fortunate than you.
Instead of paying family-run companies for software, pay to individual
workers you see are devoted to certain tasks such as documentation,
translation, release announcements and distribution.
Don't profit only on Free Software, share your income with other people
in the community.
Provide more people with a stable income for their work in Free
Software by sharing money.
On Jul 16, 2025 4:02 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> wrote:
Jean, zero of this is responding to the article I linked which I
imagine
you didn't read.
Yes, my summary was exaggerated and simplistic because I was just
trying
to make the point in a direction and emphasize the linked article.
Read
the article.
The whole framing if "reverse centaur" acknowledges the normal
"centaur"
situation. Workers forever have used technology to improve
productivity
indeed, and AI can indeed be used that way and is. Yes yes yes. And
that
was true for the Luddites too. But that is not why it is being
pushed as
hard in many places.
Just read the article, I don't need to waste time repeating all the
points here. I'm happy to have a *productive* discussion about the
ideas
when you just read the link so we can be not just talking past each
other. Your reply here is like replying to what you imagine the
article
to have said based on some prejudice you have after reading my
grossly
short summary points about it.
Again:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-cen
taurs
On 7/16/25 3:30, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Aaron Wolf<wolft...@riseup.net> [2025-07-14 22:52]:
>> The purpose of AI in most of this context is **not** about
improving
>> productivity!!
> Thanks for your opinion, though it sounds to me like saying sky is
not
> blue, and we do not breath air. The reason why I have set up my
> computer to have the GPU is to improve the productivity.
>
>> It's about taking away tech-worker labor power.
>> Cory Doctorow explains it all very clearly:
>>
[1]https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-
cen
>> taurs
> Sure! Nothing wrong with minimizing expenses. Educated man will
know
> how to make work smarter, the other one must become smarter.
>
> Increasing productivity and efficiency means less labor power.
Good thing.
>
> Would you like paying a construction company if you could simply
rent
> a machine to print your house for you? You could even
interactively
> generate final design without any employer.
>
>> There will be a day when AI is actually productively helpful,
but
>> that's not today for most things.
> Well maybe not for you, I respect the opinion, though many of
people I
> know using Large Language Models (LLM) have got tremendous
assistance,
> that they couldn't complete themselves otherwise. It would need
too
> large number of people, and for individual on university, it
wouldn't
> be even possible making those projects.
>
> What you call "AI" is just new technology powered with knowledge
that
> gives us good outcomes, it is new computing age, and not
"intelligent"
> by any means. It is just computer and software. So let's not give
it
> too much of the importance.
>
> Computers were since their inception "productively helpful" as
that
> was the reason to create them in the first place.
>
> New technologies help with many tasks, with some they can't, but
we
> can't be so biased to say they are not helpful, when it is clear
they
> are helpful on many examples. Just watch robots who learn what is
to
> be done in a minute on online videos.
>
>> Today, it is a cudgel for bosses to use to take away power from
>> workers, even if the results for productivity are worse.
> Workers provide service and get paid for it. Unless they are
partners
> in business, they weren't meant to have powers in that business.
>
> Business is normally family oriented. A worker is not member of
the
> family and usually doesn't have decision powers. He works, and
> provides the needed service.
>
> Families are foundation of our civilization.
>
> Each family has power to decide how to do their business, and they
> think for themselves mostly, and by priority.
>
> Those families who can think on society and groups, they do.
>
> Jean Louis
Jean, zero of this is responding to the article I linked which I
imagine you didn't read.
Yes, my summary was exaggerated and simplistic because I was just
trying to make the point in a direction and emphasize the linked
article. Read the article.
The whole framing if "reverse centaur" acknowledges the normal
"centaur" situation. Workers forever have used technology to
improve
productivity indeed, and AI can indeed be used that way and is.
Yes yes
yes. And that was true for the Luddites too. But that is not why
it is
being pushed as hard in many places.
Just read the article, I don't need to waste time repeating all
the
points here. I'm happy to have a *productive* discussion about
the
ideas when you just read the link so we can be not just talking
past
each other. Your reply here is like replying to what you imagine
the
article to have said based on some prejudice you have after
reading my
grossly short summary points about it.
Again:
[1]https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-
cen
taurs
On 7/16/25 3:30, Jean Louis wrote:
* Aaron Wolf [2]<wolft...@riseup.net> [2025-07-14 22:52]:
The purpose of AI in most of this context is **not** about
improving
productivity!!
Thanks for your opinion, though it sounds to me like saying sky is
not
blue, and we do not breath air. The reason why I have set up my
computer to have the GPU is to improve the productivity.
It's about taking away tech-worker labor power.
Cory Doctorow explains it all very clearly:
[1][3]https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#rever
se-cen
taurs
Sure! Nothing wrong with minimizing expenses. Educated man will know
how to make work smarter, the other one must become smarter.
Increasing productivity and efficiency means less labor power. Good
thing.
Would you like paying a construction company if you could simply
rent
a machine to print your house for you? You could even interactively
generate final design without any employer.
There will be a day when AI is actually productively helpful, but
that's not today for most things.
Well maybe not for you, I respect the opinion, though many of people
I
know using Large Language Models (LLM) have got tremendous
assistance,
that they couldn't complete themselves otherwise. It would need too
large number of people, and for individual on university, it
wouldn't
be even possible making those projects.
What you call "AI" is just new technology powered with knowledge
that
gives us good outcomes, it is new computing age, and not
"intelligent"
by any means. It is just computer and software. So let's not give it
too much of the importance.
Computers were since their inception "productively helpful" as that
was the reason to create them in the first place.
New technologies help with many tasks, with some they can't, but we
can't be so biased to say they are not helpful, when it is clear
they
are helpful on many examples. Just watch robots who learn what is to
be done in a minute on online videos.
Today, it is a cudgel for bosses to use to take away power from
workers, even if the results for productivity are worse.
Workers provide service and get paid for it. Unless they are
partners
in business, they weren't meant to have powers in that business.
Business is normally family oriented. A worker is not member of the
family and usually doesn't have decision powers. He works, and
provides the needed service.
Families are foundation of our civilization.
Each family has power to decide how to do their business, and they
think for themselves mostly, and by priority.
Those families who can think on society and groups, they do.
Jean Louis
References
1.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-cen
taurs
2. mailto:wolft...@riseup.net
3.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/23/maximal-plausibility/#reverse-cen
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
