From the first paragraph:

> By its developers’ own admission, ‘AI’ is meant to enable control of population that subverts, and overpowers, all existing political apparatuses, and which, by design, is meant to substitute people’s capacity to make their judgements.

Are those claims from the start true? Have the labs or inventors of AI said things like that AI is “meant” to do those things like “subvert” all existing political apparatuses?

(Ideally the page would have added source links for the claims.)

> arguing about competing definitions of AI is distracting our eyes from the actual prize: an urgently needed revolution from the left.

> it is worth reminding ourselves that not only are alternatives imaginable; they are also feasible and realistic, as for the most of human history — for the absolutely longest time of our human existence on earth — we humans lived without slavery; lived without prisons; lived without police; lived in communities without cisheteropatriarchal norms; and lived without AI.

Delusional utopianism.

abolish calculators!

"You can't fix social issues through tech axis"

Almost all of the grievances directed at AI come from unchecked hyperstitionalized capitalism. So why not try to fix that rather than blame technology? Even if you abolish AI you'd have exactly the same problems, and then some.

TBF the article does identify this, but then it seems to put the cart before the horse.

tl;dr

They argue AI abolition is only possible alongside the abolition of capitalism, since AI's harms are integral to capitalism itself.

Their idea of AI abolition aims at a liberatory alternative, which they define as "a revolution from the left as an alternative to global technofascism."

The above is my personal selection from what glm-5.3 responded with to my question "What's the main point of this?" asked in the web browser that I created myself using agents that has an agent chat embedded where I can ask it to read and manipulate any page I'm viewing.