I wouldn't call it sexist because that is more a term on the stratum of human discourse. The idea is more that it is phallogocentric bias, in the metaphysical sense. I don't believe that the feminine-masculine dyad is reducible to sex in human beings. Thus there is a femininity inside the rock, but we wouldn't claim it has a vagina. Hope that helps.

The way we currently use AI is to write paragraphs ourselves and then only use AI to reformulate it using more accessible language. If you go back in the blog, all older articles are written entirely or mostly by humans (and much weaker AI), and the core difference is only the clarity of expression, not any difference in semantics. We would not use AI to express ideas that differ from our own, we really only use it to reformulate into more easily accessible language. This is how we advocate for using AI in writing currently.

We distance ourselves from using AI as a "replacement" for genuine thought--instead it is meant to bridge the gap between different recipients and to navigate the complex web of human natural language. The semantics are human-driven, what is curated is only our communication with the AI to serve ultimately human needs. We could have illustrated this aspect more clearly in the article, since it seemed too focused on "AI being great", but ofc this is in the context of AI ultimately serving humans. Here is an indirect follow-up article in case you are interested:

https://absolutenegation.wordpress.com/2023/02/28/writing-and-anxiety/

Semantically there is not a single point we did not make. As said, the AI was a stylization tool. If you are familiar with using GPT, you can see that it could not write a coherent post like that without human semantic input.

You got that exactly right. It's sad to see for us this didn't come across in the article. But that was our way of thinking, i.e. FOSS (free and open source software). We will improve in future articles! Thanks for reading!

In what way is the article nonsense? I'd like some more concrete criticism so we can improve in future articles.
As concerns your point about not having specific enough what democratization means: we accept that as valid criticism. We can go more in depth in future articles. I think our core goal here was to first even set the stage for a need of democratization. Thanks for reading!

Sadly this is quite misleading, since the topics and general paragraphs were written by me and my team, but the formatting itself came from AI to help make the language clearer. We use AI as a styling tool, we might talk about this in future articles however.

I used AI to format paragraphs. But the topics and jumping around is not due to AI but how we approach inter-disciplinary research. I think we might have to tone down this style however, to make future articles clearer!

Well, we do hope there will be less of a technological reductionism operative. Which is why the question is to let the people use the AI for distributing their own consciousness and desire across the various social fields.

Yeah, i agree. What could anarchists however learn from authoritarians then in terms of messaging? I believe in synthesizing some of these approaches, since as you say, naturally, anarchism is what some have termed an "anti-meme".

I see, thank you for elaborating on that. we find it hard to predict how AI will behave. We have to account for stats that sadly show that world-wide authoritarianism 1) vastly outnumbers any democratic leaning, let alone anarchic tendencies (the numbers are smth like 3 to 1); and 2) that authoritarianism has also seen an increase in the last decade.
Hence we see a risk of bad actors utilizing AI in such a way as to promote authoritarian regimes.

This is a good point. Thank you for adding that. I think we could go more in depth in terms of deflationary pressure in the future, considering tech such as Quantum Computing. We do believe that costs will sink significantly as algorithms and hardware situations improve.

Could you elaborate on that please? I might consider it for the next article.

i am sorry, could u be more specific?

Good question. I will ask the author to expand on this. Feel free to subscribe to the newsletter for any follow-ups

Thank u for the feedback. i myself am a theist so i challenge these views in detail