A.I. is a Weapon | By Any Means

[MUSIC] Everybody knows the world is fucked up. The point is, how do we change it? This is by any means. A podcast about how we build a better world. I'm James Har, artist, propagandist, and your host. Today, I'm joined by Will, who you probably know as Will's talks to talk about China, AI, and a socialist approach to this technology, and how that could look. Because I'm not particularly interested in using AI to replace artists, I'm more interested in how we can use it to replace Adobe. Can we use these tools to build better things? Things that we own and share. Instead of spending the rest of our lives renting them from tech companies, and as we talk about China, challenging American technological dominance, what does that open up for those of us trying to challenge the same companies from home? Will, thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. I'm always really, really impressed by one house is synced and developed your analysis. But also, how you could be so tapped in both theoretically and into the deepest annals of internet drama. You're always in it. I try not to be, it's a disease that I try to avoid, but I appreciate it. I didn't know you would sell that. Thank you. I'm trying to avoid the internet drama, but I do spend too much time scrolling. And I have too many scientists on my feed. Intentionally so. Yeah. You're bringing the enemies closer so you can-- Yes, I get many DMs saying, why do you follow birth, right, Will? Why do you follow the state of Israel, my folks? Like, come on. It's because I greatly enjoy Zionist propaganda that I have to respond to. It's a cross that I bear. But I appreciate that. Thank you. Also, keeping their arguments front of mind keeps your tools sharp. Yes. You have to always be on the cutting edge of what stupid fucking arguments your enemies are saying. So you know how to retort, how you know how to respond. And I think, like, honestly, one of our bigger roles on the internet as like propagandists is to give our followers the rhetorical tools to debate in the comments with their friends, their family, and also to see propaganda happening to them in real time. So they know what to take, how to take it, and, you know, to see through the bullshit. Yes, exactly. I always say I'm trying to give people the arguments they need to fight with their evil uncle, a Thanksgiving. When I used to be a little more lived up that was many of my focus, now it's like, whenever you see Zionist outside or you yourself are bombarded with Zionist propaganda, or God forbid, you meet Noah Tishby, who I have personal beef with. What a person. Well, despite the fact that I think a majority of your content is situated around Zionism, the obvious and impending fall of the project of so-called Israel. Today we're actually talking in Shalaf. Today we're actually talking about something totally different, which is AI. I think on the left, there is-- and in the American public as a whole, just a general disdain for AI in any manifestation. However, it is ubiquitous. It seems to only be encroaching further into our day-to-day lives. And as materialists, you know, like we can occupy the left from moral or idealistic spaces, but our primary critiques are from the material. I think that it's good to figure out what it means to engage with it, both in your everyday life, but also as a socialist, as someone that's engaged in class struggle, and what engaging with AI, with praxis in mind, looks like. Yes, yeah, I think the way it's psychosis gets psychosis. And what's happened is we have these oligarchs saying psychotic things about this technology, just like they did during the vacuum boom, but every other-- they're all wild, right? And now the public who are being fled with this are having a natural and very real and very expected and very justified response, which is produced in all the ideologies we're having. And so I think it's productive to have a conversation not on the side of these lefties are being super mega woke and need to get in line and suck off Sam Altman. But how do we productively actually undermine Sam Altman and his little evil cronies in a way that actually works in a way that is actually effective, not in the liberal understanding of pragmatism of bending the knee harder, but actually pragmatically getting whatever the digital equivalent of a Molotov is. And that's the goal. Yeah, get our digital Molotovs ready and lit. Yeah, no, I love that. And I do love-- you use the word psychosis. It is-- the word I've been using is reactionary. The response to AI is incredibly reactionary. And the thing that I think is the most upsetting about the response isn't the content. It's like I very much empathize and agree with the fact that AI has somehow been used and is very much connoted with taking away all of the labor that is the most beautiful and the most human. They talk about it's like it's going to make artists and designers and you don't have to write anymore. You don't have to read or research all these things that are about human learning and development and ingenuity and creativity. And I really empathize with that. And I'm for-- let's have robots do the menial shit so that we can do the fun shit. But I think in the lambast there is an absolutist response and very draconian response that this shit should not exist in any capacity. And to me, that's anti-materialist. And not helpful. In the future we want, I want to be at work and be like, oh, AI can do 50% of my job. Now I get to work 50% less. Like that's tight. Correct. And also sue me. I am Gen Z. I love having a good search result. I love having a good FYP. Like I use Instagram. I love the things that Instagram has insurgated. And so I found the way I soften up leftist when I'm talking about this. And I've had long, long conversations. And I also empathize a lot with the very real material consequences. As we were talking before, I live in Virginia, number one data center, we cap it on the world. And if I had a data center that was being built for AI, it was bit like Google or Meta or Fang or something. And I was told that I'd have a vitriol, like emotional response to that and say, no, this technology should never exist when I want to, you know, harm it and whatever. This makes sense. In many ways I do. Whenever I see this, I go, this is horrendous and wanted to die. But the way I soften people up about this is the question is not, no one is living in a world where AI doesn't touch their life. All of us are on social media. Instagram is an AI first platform. YouTube is an AI first platform now. And so the question moves a very quickly away from, is it ever acceptable to use it in any way at all? Everyone has already accepted that it is or at least it's a necessary evil. And I think we need to oscillate between the, there's no ethical consumption under capitalism obviously and taking the real actual practical steps we can to undermine it using the tools we have seriously. And that's where I think the conversation gets caught. 'Cause I think there is a bad tendency on some pieces of the left. I think it's a similar discussion, ACP, where they go, all these people are way too woke. They're all nonsense. They have no issues. They just need to embrace this technology universally. And I think that goes in the wrong direction as well. So hopefully we'll chart a better course that actually addresses the concerns and maybe eases some of the real concerns that American leftists and American people generally have with us. - For context before, because you just gave the perfect said way into the first thing we were gonna talk about, but for a listener right now, I just want you to know that there's a couple of things we're not gonna be getting into so much and we're not gonna be getting into the environmental impact which has a lot of nuance, a lot of the information that we have been fed is old, inaccurate or originally false. That doesn't mean that there isn't an environmental impact and it's not something that should be considered or mitigated, but there is realities in the environmental impact of AI versus the myriad of other behaviors that we engage with. And so we're just gonna hold that one to the side. And then the other one is something that is very near and dear to my heart as someone that's trying to stay smart and getting stupider every day, every day, is how some of these technologies do cognitive offloading and can stop you from having the level of critical thinking and the ability to read, to research, to think, and that is a very important thing but it's not really what we're gonna be getting into today. We are talking about AI. as a technology that can be leveraged and how it can be leveraged for the left. So, if you're coming in, be like, they're gonna talk about water usage, that's not happening, sorry. But the reactionary mind or the reactionary tendency here, and the realities of praxis that we're discussing remind me so much of something that it often gets brought up and is way too misunderstood or misidentified is the response of the ledites. I was very happy when we initially talked about this and you brought up the ledite situation, but if no one knows, it's a historical moment in the early 1800s, where there is new industrial technology that was effectively making what used to be like gilded, skilled artisans, lose power in the market, they're becoming more exploitable because their skills were less useful, their wages were decreasing, and they went and they tried to destroy the looms and destroy the weaving machines and various other things that were happening there. And that's the starting point of a real historical moment but that gets wildly misunderstood. - Yeah, I think the, on that, I think the ledites for listeners who don't know, but might know more about America and modern day politics, think about how we've rewritten the story of the ledites as the right-winger saying that the lefties are just too woke and are have like anti-technology crazes. That's how a lot of liberal even understanding is the ledites and how this word has developed is there's a caricature of ledism and ledites as being people that just universally hate progress, which is quite funny 'cause leftists are progressivists. We want the history to progress. That is that we are in the project of how history progresses. Whereas the actual grievances of the light it's overall was that the way this technology was being implemented, the way it was existing, the social relations, some might say, that existed within the technology. Ooh, scary vixsters, we're harming them and we're being under indexed. And actually, they were aware of this. - They spoke to it explicitly. - Exactly, protesting people are entitled to be irrational and unreasonable. But even then, they were very irrational and very reasonable saying our goal is not to stop the development of this technology, even if we have issues with some of the low quality of it or some of the issues very, what does that sound like? It still clearly provides some use value. We are taking issue with the way that it's replacing our way of living and our costs. And that has been since and very importantly, rewritten in history as actually them only representing the most reactionary, and most irrational of responses to technology, it's so interesting. And it's reproduced, this same thing has reproduced itself a long time, for example, the early internet. As we're in there, many are there. - No, absolutely. No, and I think that I love that you brought in the specter of Marxism into this. The social relations were the actual issue here. They realized that because they did not control the machines and the implementation of this new technology, that they were powerless to defend themselves against what this was going to do to them materially, economically, at their job. They're places like the way that they make their living. And so they had explicit demands. And they were demands of the textile, like the mill owners and the textile owners, as well as the government to regulate this technology so that it would benefit them, so that they would be protected against the onslaught of technology. And, you know, so I think that it's just an important thing to understand that we should be Luddites. And we are the modern day Luddites. But rather than saying, AI bad, AI take job-y, you know, whatever, it's under the current social relations, AI has the potential to cause mass unemployment. Under the current social relations, AI is getting increasing access to mass amounts of data that can be used to repress, suppress, you know, various people that might seek to not live the western way of life. And so the question about AI and about its utilization should be about the social relations. And how do we, how do we move something like AI into social relations that are more favorable to us? And the thing that I really, really love about this, 'cause I think we all know the textile workers back in the early 1800s didn't win. - Yeah, a lot of them got killed, like. - They very, they murdered a lot of them. - So they historically did not win. But they didn't win because once again, material reality, the material circumstance was they were battling over physical factories that were protected by the physical forces of state-backed violence, military and police. And the interesting thing about AI and various other technologies is it's immaterial. It exists remotely and infinitely and the world of open source offers an immense opportunity for us to win this time. - Yes, there's a large development, this gets into China is developing open source, especially. We must bring up China at this point in the conversation 'cause open source is not just developing. Unfortunately, we still are at a place where it takes some amount of investments to develop even open source AI, open weight models. But the headline is that there are these frontier labs and Tropic, Chat chat, Google and now maybe meta, a formerly Facebook that are American-- - You forgot Brock. - Oh, oh, Brock, X, X, X, X, X, X. - You forgot Brock. The smartest, most based of the AI, the one that loves Jesus and the, yeah, God. Talk about the cringiest, most disgusting of them. Like, at least anthropic pretends to be woke. Like, no, so there are these frontier labs that are mostly American owned and represent the worst of this bubble, which is closed source, you gotta pay them, they're paid to play, and they manipulate shit, they are now running ads on chat GPT, right? And then we have, you know, imperfect, I think anyone working in this will recognize open source ones, where there are some that you can run just on your computer, when you can run very slowly, just on your computer, and more relevantly to viewers who actually want to look into it, you can run it on providers that have their own cloud that are not related to the producers. And we know what's in them, we know what's in the weights as well, whereas we cannot see what's in the weights of anthropic and whatnot. And so what this provides is basically, there is no moat for these original ledites. There is no difference between the factory owners who had all the machines and the ledites who are trying to take control of the machines. We have control of the machines right now. And very quickly, the oligarchs are realizing the consequence of that, which is that there is absolutely no moat, both for their AI machines that they want to charge a million dollar step access to when we now have basically free or at cost access to. And as they're discovering a whole lot of other software that AI can reproduce really quickly. - The thing is, we're fighting the U.S. government and the state capital nexus are fighting really, really hard to beat China in AI. To beat China in economic dominance in a myriad of ways. That would be too much to get into right now. But the reality is, is that China already won. China has already won all of this. Everything that exists in the domestic space of AI companies from a capital standpoint, from a profitability standpoint, there is no pathway for any of these companies to ever be profitable. The amount of investment, the ability for them to make money, they cannot do it. It always makes me go conspiracy. I'm like, well, they know this, what are they doing? What are they doing? - Oh, yeah, I have a guess. They're not all crazy and stupid. There is a wind value for some of them. And it's called an IPO. That's really, I mean, that's why they want an IPO and throw up so much. 'Cause they want to make all you holding the bag. - It's the only fucking off room. But the reality is like, from a global standpoint, it's like, AI is being used in corporations and businesses. It's not going away from that standpoint. I know people hate when you say that, 'cause they're like, stop telling me, it's okay. Sorry, it's not going away. But China's models are like 10x cheaper or less than the US Frontier Labs. And just on the pure economics of it, these are gonna be the models that get utilized by every other company and every other country. The other side of this too is people are like, well, what if they make these open source models or if they even talk about like 3D printing? What if they make that stuff illegal? The cat's out of the fucking bag, brother. There's no putting it back, it cannot happen. A friend of mine, Prince Ghost Guns. And he's like, yeah, if they tried to make these 3D printers not be able to print ghost guns, it's like, it's impossible to regulate. All a 3D printer does is measure certain points that a nozzle has to go to layer by layer, you know? There's no way to be like this. like, that's a gun, that's a gun. True. You're like, oh, you're gonna regulate the 3D printers. Not only can you flash them with new software, you could print a 3D printer with another 3D printer. - Yeah, it's very funny. And this always goes back to, and also the capitalists are incentivized to recognize this, as you point to. It's not just a cost thing. It's also that it's much more useful if you own the model and can make what you want out of it. A 3D printer that has arbitrary and absurd limitations on what they consider a gun is much less useful, even if it's just as expensive. And the same is true of AI. If you have an open source one, it is much more useful for whatever usage you have, right? And we know this because capitalists are doing this. The capitalists firms across the board, there's a really good graph, and it's showing a complete model, a token flip. So tokens are like the base unit of AI usage. And it used to be basically 70-20. So 70% were closed models like Anthropic and Chad GPT, and now 70% are open models like DeepSeek and Quen and Alibaba. And what is happening right now is, that is the death of the AI bubble. And I think it's a board to recognize what I kind of alluded to there, which is there is a winson area for these Anthropics and Chad GPT, which is of course two things. First of all, they can shut down for an open source. That's what they're trying to do. That's what we're seeing right now. We're seeing it done in England. We're seeing England do intense and draconian digital measures to shut down free and open source internet across the board, whether that is the free and open source internet we have right now, if websites and backends to expression, or they can become the only providers to the largest industry within the United States, which is of course the US military. And that was the whole debate between Chad GPT and Anthropic, who will be able to be the AI provider of the US Department of Defense. Who's gonna say yes to autonomous weapons? Exactly, exactly. And what's funny here is even that is a band-aid 'cause once it becomes cheap enough, the US government defense is going to use Chinese AI because they too are capitalists with the mind viruses of capitalists. So there's only the question of how long does this AI bubble last and the longer it lasts, the more Americans get screwed over because number two, how much can they make Americans hold the back? And the worst option is it lasts for a decade because they succeed in making a free and open source software illegal. That would be I think the worst condition and in many ways what has happened to American social media. You know our social media is owned by a bunch of oligarchs because we have regulatory limitations on who can run it and how it can be run. And we have regulatory capture by the oligarchs that run it. So that's really the win scenario for the oligarchs. Yeah, I mean, I think for me I don't see a world even with whatever they're doing in the UK to make it illegal to use open source models. It's like, yeah, it's illegal, it's piracy is illegal. You know what I mean? Piracy is illegal. It's been illegal for a long time guys. Pirate Bay is still up, brother. Millions of pirates all across the US right now, brother. And also they all just learned about jelly thin and plex too. And so now they're abandoning Netflix and Hulu and all this stuff. And so I just don't see a world realistically in which they can succeed in making it illegal because the way that making it illegal used to work was that adoption was really difficult for the things that the market didn't create. Like the major corporations didn't create. There's a reason a bunch of people didn't use Linux. And it was because the user interface and like, fucking sucked. And like the way to implement it, fucking sucked. And you had to have like a lot of know how and be willing to deal with like really terrible user experience. But now fucking the thing they would wanna make it illegal, AI can make the illegal AI adoption so easy. I definitely didn't, I definitely didn't pirate like 700 movies and start a jelly fan server. I didn't do that. But I can tell you that cloud work, did set up a jelly fan server for me very easily. Very easily. - It's laughably simple. And the same thing with open source AI. It's now like, when I speak with my friends about this and like we'll discuss practical measures as well. I'd say to skim red, the number one practical measure anyone can do is if they are forced to use AI in their work or anything, just use open source ones. You are cutting off the financial faucet to these oligarchs. But the way to do it is very simple. And actually you can ask like if you don't find a guide, you can ask it how to do it deepseek.com is very simple. Because so yeah, there is no mode. And I think you're absolutely right. If we want to understand why they're still investing so much is 'cause they're financially incentivized to convince all each other that it's a propaganda circle jerk that the bubble won't pop, right? They all have the other one holding the back. And I think we can recognize it will pop. And I think the goal should really be to hasten the speed with which it pops. And hasten and limit the amount that American people can be left holding that bag, 'cause it's really quite gross. And as you know, one of the best uses forever is not piracy yet of just vibe coding alternatives to software as we recently saw the trend of decompiling. - Now exactly, we're gonna get into that in a little bit. - Yes. - But you did, so there's something that's happening obviously which is America is losing on competitive advantage here. And so, and clearly what they're saying is they're like saying actually competition's not allowed. And they do it all the time. They're like DJI, you can't sell your drones here. Back in the fucking early '80s or the late '80s, fucking Toyota made a really sick, like teeny tiny SUV. And it was out competing US cars. You're like illegal. So it's just, it's, it's a lot. - It's illegal. - B-Y-D is illegal. - B-Y-D is illegal. - B-Y-D is illegal. - I dream of them. - God, I want to be so bad or like the Xiaomi, the Xiaomi fucking car, that shit's so sick. Yeah, so US protectionism, economic protectionism is the obvious thing that's happening here. Because they, that's like the last thing you do when you're losing, you're like, well, I'll just, you can't even compete here. You can't even do it. And you're right, the moat isn't there. So they can't really stop it. And so they're relying on really funny propaganda. I've seen in the past week, there's two different execs from the majors, one from Anthropic and one from OpenAI. And they come in and they're like, see the thing is these open weight models are super risky. They're so risky guys. They can, you don't know what's in there guys. And I was like, okay. Maybe knowing it's propaganda, okay. I was like, maybe Anthropic, like through their cybersecurity guy in here to come talk on MSNBC or maybe OpenAI, you know, like put like one of their heads of product development who like really knows it. The Anthropic guy was the leader of their sales department. And the OpenAI guy, a girl woman, was the CFO. So yeah, you're right. It is risky for you. It's super risky for your bottom line. - Yeah, I was having a discussion about this. And the unfortunate thing about propaganda as this university true is it's not always they say something that is false. You know, it's often because they say contradictory things. You know, they say equally it's gonna save all of us and it's the most scary singularity inducing thing in the world. You know, I spent a lot of time in science propaganda. They equally say that they're a big scary military and that they're the most moral, totally acceptable military. Everything is true. - And they're so small and they're so helpless. - They're teeny but they also these era countries, they keep losing 'cause we're so strong. It's the point is to whatever the helpful truth is. And so that is psychosis inducing. It is reaction inducing when the most extremes of everything are being pushed upon us for the maximum amount of extractive value across everything. And you know, this is where the angle of the best way to deconstruct propaganda from within the United States is to just look at what other people are doing, right? They really is like China, the Chinese, you know, CPC, the Chinese party members as well as across the world where there are people that are not bought and paid for by American oligarchs as well. They have different interests. They have different economic interests, whatever. You need to engage with everything critically. They have different things to say about it and it is not that AI is destroying the whole world and is going to kill all of us and it's not that AI is going to save all of us either. It is a much more coherent, productive discussion. And it makes it a lot easier to look at these people and go, oh, they're just pure short term opportunists trying to extract the maximum amount of profit out of this bubble, this boom and bust that we possibly can. We should not consider anything they say at all. It's nonsensical and we both shouldn't accept it for face value and shouldn't take their saying of, you know, it's going to kill us all as, oh, it's not going to kill us all because there are real dangers. But especially for the imperialist class, that's why Claude's made me laugh quite a lot when the topic was like, nah, I'm Sarah Laws using our software to develop a missile guiding system. And I was like, number one, I don't think they did. There's no confirmed reports of that. And it's like, that's kind of a really good ad, my friends. Like, I don't know. - First of all, first of all, tight. First of all, tight. Second of all, didn't the US just hit us? a ship in the South China Sea, because AI said it was holding terrorists or something, and then it hallucinated the whole deal. Maybe answer a law is not our issue right now. Yeah, yeah, maybe if you have missile guiding systems, and AI can give the missile guiding systems, that's actually out. It's so funny that you always talk about Israel because that's everything. They're like, they're doing that thing. I'm doing. Yeah, Israel, Palestine is the laboratory. I'm so annoying in conversation because I bring like everything is about Israel because Americans, the way you deconstruct, like, quick guide, the way you deconstruct American exceptionalism is you just hammer into American's heads that there is rallies. That's it. That's all you do. And then American exceptions and dead because liberals are super anti-imperialist when it comes to Israel, and then when you bring it back to America, you're like, oh, so it's, it's true here as well. And you know, the Palestinians, they're not like, you know, kill everyone that ever used Chad GPT, the Palestinians are sitting here being like, how do we use this? Maybe, maybe a technology that is like all of human knowledge put into an easily accessible form, even if that was done immorally and done by evil oligarchs. Maybe that's helpful to us. Maybe doing that offline and no one can watch. And it has information that they can't sift out. And I think people that aren't forced to actually engage in that have the privilege at some points of being idealistic or idealistic. At Chad GPT, how do I build a Kassam rocket? Kind of unironically like it is. Oh, by the way, everybody listening, you can do a thing called obliteration. A obliteration is a really, really fun thing you can do to any open model. And it just takes all the guardrails off and you can ask it anything and it'll give you any answer. That's just a weird little aside. We're going to keep going. No, the thing that I love is that technology isn't good or bad or evil or whatever. It exists in an institutional context and how it is institutionally embedded into our lives is going to determine the outcomes which can be bad or good. And so if we have an AI, you and I have an AI, we have a business. You and I, we make fucking shoes. I should use an immaterial thing. We make a software. And to maintain the service and everything, we have to put in 40 hours a week because you and I were grueling over the code, we're doing all the things. Now we have this AI and it can reduce our labor inputs are the necessary labor to keep this thing going by 50%. If you and I, the workers own that company, we could be like, let's do 50% less work brother. That sounds tight. Or let's say it's growing. We want it to grow a little bit. We don't want to be at Stasis. Let's do 40% less work and still come out on top doing 10% more work or whatever than the matter. Yeah. But in a capitalist institutional arrangement, they are controlling the implementation. They are controlling other things. And so they're going to say, oh, you can do 50% less work and maintain this thing. I'm either going to fire 50% of you and now have higher levels of productivity or I'll fire some and now require a higher level of efficiency and productivity at the same amount of labor time output that you've been doing. And now we're going to have more growth and I will have more wealth accumulation by virtue of that. So it's very much about the decisions and who makes the decisions. You know, the designers at some company that does clothes, like means workwear, are never going to be like, I've been training my whole life to learn how to draw and make cool posters. What if I didn't have to do that thing that I really love to do all the time? You know, like, what if I made me unnecessary? And the thing that I actually like love to do unnecessary, that's not how we're going to implement it. Yeah. Two things. First of all, I want to say, especially to Americans who are struggling and especially to people that are struggling because of this, sometimes overly analytical discussions cannot treat this with a sense to be that serves. If I lost my job because of AI, I would vitrically hate that. And I would be that's super important to say that is so important to say. Yeah. If I like, I'm never going to talk down to someone who has an analytically different opinion on this because I'm not losing my job because of it. You know, and I'm still being paid. Yeah. And this is this is to build productive discussions. So this doesn't happen, not to downplay the harm that it does. Because it's very important. I'm so happy that you put that context. I know we can go in on it. And it is very true that there are really detrimental social effects for a lot of people because of this stuff, whether it be environmental things, whether it be your economic place. And that is very true. And what I'm really just trying to situate is that it is totally reasonable to hate the thing, but that we should also understand that technology just exists. And in another world or in certain ways, we can utilize technology to better ends. Yes. And this is true infinitely. And the fun thing is like the way I always get around the personal sensitivity and the egg shows that do actually need to be walked on for people that are going through very difficult times is talking about a different technology. A coal mining is a good example of this. And this discussion has been repeated boxite mining and tin mining. This discussion's been repeated 10 trillion times across the third world. Right. Where they go, we are suffering from global warming and over extraction. We are the ones paying the price for this. And also coal is upholding our economy. And also tin is upholding our economy and boxite mining is upholding our economy. How do we use our boxite reserves and our tin reserves and our coal reserves to underwrite the system as a whole? And the answer is not always an immediate open boycott. The answer is very often analysis to understand the situation and then tactical engagement with that system to undermine it. Right. And that's what's being called for. The second thing is, is everybody agrees with this? Open AI even. It was founded as a quote-unquote charity to develop open source people owns technology because from this start, before something is profitable, the people that are actually just interested in that. Right. The people that are actually developing the workers, some might say. Not that open AI ever represented that necessarily, but the researchers that had more sway prior to the complete capitalization of it recognized the danger of what they're doing and the value of what they're doing. And open AI's, before it made a shit ton of money, thesis was this. And so this isn't necessarily new. It's just the conversation has been pushed so far because of reactionary and capitalist tendencies that want to profit off of misunderstanding and profit off of distortion that we need to bring it back to what the people who are doing the exact same thing before they could make money off of it believed, which is that this can be a productive technology. This can be a technology that is helpful to people just like every other technology. And by the way, these reactionary tendencies existed across the board. When oil was stealing coal workers jobs, people felt the same way about oil, right. And oil is in fact burning the planet. They were a hundred percent right. The response was not to stick with coal though. The response was as many of the people and maybe we're seeing the kind of the contradictions develop as well with solar. People have pullbacks from solar because of, you know, rare earth extraction and whatnot. And they're right. The issue of course is that we cannot slow progress. We need to use the progress to undermine its own contradictions. Once again, what a surprising Marxist conclusion. I know. I know. I love the brought up the open AI thing and sort of like the idealism in its in its founding because like the literal inventor of chat GPT who also invented Tesla full self driving and the term vibe code coding Andre Carpathi. When he left open AI, he went out on Git and put up all these bash scripts to basically tell you how to build it all yourself, which is super funny because like there are workers that are involved in these places that do get involved on the on the dream, you know, and they really do believe in the dream of that thing. And so, you know, there's I know we talked about like the internet. When the internet first came, there was there was celebrants and there was skeptics. There are people like that were like, this is this is going to change world. It's going to we're going to have infinite access to knowledge and infinitely ability to to connect and and organize with each other and do all the stuff. And then there are the skeptics that were like, either this is bunk, this is bullshit, it's not anything. Or like this could really be used for the most nefarious means. And you know, it really there was only there was a like an inflection point in 1996 with a telecom change from Bill Clinton, fuck you Clinton, where they opened up the internet to like a form of data collection. We're now advertising in data collection could exist. And that really created a moment for a mass privatization on the internet. And so, you know, no one's here sitting now these days being like the internet is terrible. Nobody used the internet anymore. And I think that that's what we're talking about when it comes to AI. We're saying right now we are seeing the start of the detrimental effects to it. And we're also seeing the propaganda from the current controllers, the current capitalist class that somehow, you know, your time with duality of the propaganda, they're saying like this is going to create a socialist utopia. And it's also going to kill us all and take away everyone's job. And so it's very, very easy to be sitting at the that first step, I mean like it's all bad. But I think that there is a world that's going to exist in not too long where the ubiquity of it is just entrenched. It's there. And it is on us to engage with it materially to say, what do we do to utilize this current material reality to our best interest? Yeah. And to give that a little bit of teeth or specifically with the open internet, a great example of this is the genocide of Palestine. Like what is, when I speak to a lot of Palestinians and a lot of Palestinian activists, what they say is different about this genocide is that it is being live streamed, right? And the internet has, you know, Palantir and everything about this is a technological genocide. And in many ways, the technology we've developed and the other parks have developed or is enabling this genocide. And dialectically, perhaps, the technology they developed is also the thing that is differentiating and giving hope to the Palestinians, many Palestinians, I speak to, they're a differing opinion, it's obviously nominal. But there's a common ethos that the reason we've been so quickly in the past three years been able to change the narrative and been able to take hold of the narrative is because of the social media and the technology that was developed. And going back to the dot-com boom, we are living in another dot-com boom where there is this, this happens every few years with the Liberals in elections. There's a mass, there's a mass losing of minds where we go, this time it's the most important election in the world. And during the dot-com boom is the most important technology in the world. Kind of, you know, it's really important. It's not going to do everything and you don't deserve to have your IPO at 10X, what it would have been otherwise if you just put dot-com behind you. And so, you know, we've said it, the project is to bring us to reality and tactically engage. And there are a lot of leftists that tactically engage during the dot-com boom. They recognize the need for an open-source Twitter. Twitter was the thing that helped push the air of spring, or at least the precursors to that work, right? And in many ways, the CIA had their hands at that. But so did a lot of lefty activists that were using it for real purposes. And it's still the reason the founders for Twitter went over to Blue Sky, whatever, you know, liberal cluster fuck Blue Sky as well with threads. But there's still this development of trying to develop technology justly in an unjust world because a complete boycott is not always the answer to technology that can be very effective. And people vitriolically hate social media and yet are still on it. And I don't mean that in the, I think there's a final point. You criticize society, you participate in it. Precisely. Precisely. Oh, you hate Apple and yet you're on an iPhone. No, no, I don't mean in that way. I think we need to take hold of that talking point as well. And say, fuck yes, I am on an iPhone. And I'm using the genocidal tools to undermine them. And we have a responsibility to do so responsibly. We have a responsibility to do so conscientiously and not in a way of from a moral high ground. If we're perfect, no one's perfect in the unconscious world. For the love of God, I might expose you. We're using Riverside, which is a streaming system. It's owned by Israel and will tell them it's an Israeli software. But it's also the best that is in it. And everything is fucking Israeli. So it's we have a responsibility to responsibly engage. And I think a lot of the idealism with respect to all the idealist is enabled by a little bit of ignorance of when you are on TikTok saying you shouldn't use AI. TikTok is popular because of its AI algorithm. That is why it takes off popular. If you're on Instagram, that is why. And so a boycott is neither fee simple nor desirable. And this is what the BDS movement discovered a long time ago, a complete boycott of everything Israel's doing is neither feasible nor desirable. What you want is an act is use the actual power you actually have to undermine the system using its actual tools. Yeah, no, absolutely. And before we get into the next little moment, I do love that you brought up the sort of dialectical contradiction that was posed through Palestine. Because the Palestine situation is very similar to what is happening right now in the AI situation, which is what was currently a monopoly held by a particular capitalist cartel for Palestine, it was media, mainstream media. They have been able to hold a discursive starting point for all US thought, which they no longer were able to do. And so this thing that capitalists push for because capitalism is a very destructive mode of production and mode of operation. And in a classic Marxist term, it's like it really has capitalism really has created its own grave diggers. But I think when people in Marxists typically think about they're like, oh, it's going to exploit the working class so hard that eventually we're going to rise up because it made us so mad. And that's a possibility and it has happened. But it also creates the tools that undermine its own power and its own propagation. And so for media, it's that they no longer can control the information dissemination. There's a reason that like eight months into the current iteration of the genocide that Netanyahu came out and he said, yes, we have to fight with with guns and bombs, but more importantly, we need to fight on TikTok, you know, and it's not just circumstantial that 18 months later, TikTok is owned by the single largest individual donor to the IDF. Because they're like, how do we regain control of the means of information, the means of thought, you know, of public perception? That's that's whole thing. And so with AI, and I think there's a space which is like, instead of thinking about it through the lens of like those objects of human creativity and human ingenuity, instead of using AI to replace artists, let's use it to replace Adobe. Yes. And that's what we're seeing as to the praxis. I want to note directly before we shift over to that praxis, I want to know you're absolutely right, especially on the communication point. And it reminds me of people have mixed feelings about this because they've mixed feelings about AI. But an interesting development that I'm never going to condemn is Iran using the Lego videos posting. Did you see the Iranian Lego videos? Oh my god. And they were incredible. Everyone loves it. Come on now. Because yeah, or they were placing illustrators. Yes, but with the IRGC higher illustrators. No, the whole point was that it was hyper reality. The person, the people doing that did a good interview with, I think channel six. It was a some social media or and they were explaining how they're really trying to deeply tap into the hyper realistic culture that American hyper capitalism has produced to undermine it. And those Lego things that are viral and why can't we ban Iran off of Twitter? It's because it's such good content and it would kind of destroy the concept of Twitter that has been produced by its own oligarch, even though he in himself lives as a walking contradiction to that. So there is a very real thing of of we see it as inevitable that they're going to use all their power in all the ways that they possibly can to silence us. But what we see in reality is that they're limited by their own system. And the second that he bans everyone he disagrees with, including the IRGC, including Iran, we'll just going to go to another platform and the nature of the hyper capitalist and hyper competitive system that's been developed is that that we can do that. When they tried to ban TikTok, we went over to Red Note. By the way, I still want Red Note Red Note's gray. It's a great place. And we can do that infinitely because it does produce its own consciousness. And I agree. I think a lot of leftists imagine as being too angry. I personally, I'm too much of a third worldist to believe Americans are going to rise up in that sense. I don't think so. I think we're going to get. I pray for other people to do it for us. But I do think that you're going to get canceled for that one, or whatever. I've said much worse things. It's fine. But you know, and we'll all be living in Ultramega Chinese communism from now on, rather than Ultramega, Luxury Boomer communism. But this, you're exactly right. I think we need to view the development with social media that we've seen and the reaction to social media we've seen from the oligarchs with the nonsensical child protection regulations, which are very clearly just trying to censor people. The same way we'll see with the development of LLMs and other generative technology. They have real problems. Social media has real problems and no one is here to deny those. But the the tools that are given to us, either those are liberal tools of idealism or fascist tools of suppression are not the tools we should use. We should use the tools of the proletariat of leftism and dialectic materialism to undermine them. And that makes a very different narrative, but the narrative that actually works. And the narrative that you know goes through stages and does wild things. And as to what you wanted to point to, absolutely. We're replacing SaaS software as a service is debt. Thank God, you know, death to software as a service 2026 because they are producing these open AI, vibe coding, etc. Basically enable most people even with very limited dev background to produce alternatives to their favorite apps. The famous thing we've seen Adobe do this. We just saw I believe it was PlayStation be fully decompiled such that PlayStation games or was it a PS? I don't know, I don't know what the number is right now. It's like close to 100%. If anyone's looking up, it's called any PS5 where they basically have decompiled all of the PlayStation games because Sony came out and they were like, you're never going to own anything. And I think that it's really interesting that it started, it started with Adobe. And I think it started with the attack being on Adobe because Adobe was the one that started the attack on ownership from a software standpoint. They were the ones that said, actually, you cannot buy Photoshop anymore. You cannot buy Illustrator or the Creative Suite. You were going to have to rent it from us forever. And they would go after people that wouldn't update off of a paid like a paid version of the where they owned it. They would literally legally go after these people. If you didn't, you know, they would, they would delete work. All this, all this shit. And initially, the capitalist class didn't think it was going to work. There were like, no one's going to fucking be okay with never owning the thing that they bought. And it was a wild success. And then every single tech company moved into the SaaS model, the subscription model. And so I think that it's really chef's kiss, that the first one to get hit was was Adobe. And then followed by Sony, who, you know, came out and said what they said because if anyone has a PlayStation, I do. I've had like games that I supposedly purchased just get deleted because they no longer had a license or whatever the fuck. So yeah. Yeah, it's it's very funny. And I want to say like as much as anything is ethical in the world, like, they just think from start to front, like paying about $5 in deep seat credits to decompile Adobe so that you never have to pay the hundreds of dollars of license fees to a mega corporation with ties to Israel and ties to the American military does short complex. That is like, like materially, one of the most effective high leverage boycott tools I've ever seen. And I think this is what we get to of these are not just us being snide and undermining the dangers of AI. It's taken the dangers of it really seriously. And trying and very materially saying you're paying $100 a month into the genocide machine when you give $100 a month to Adobe, you're paying $100 a month into the genocide machine when you give it to Sony, right? Which is, you know, a corporation backed up by American regulation limitations and modes, right? There's a lot of ways we could go into this. So every dollar you give to them is that and the question is not if every dollar we give to any AI company anywhere ever is perfect. It's whether it enables us to stop supporting it the most. And I think that really recenters it overarchingly. There are also, I think that like is one of the most radicalizing things. I talked to a lot of leftists that have this opinion right. So maybe they've been personally affected by it that I tried to I've had slow, long therapeutic discussions about this because I understand how it's a tedious and necessary issue. But it tends to be equally those leftists that vitrallically hate Adobe, right? And when we get into a real not liberal real, you know, Hassan Piker has his issues, but he did eat with the, I vote for Hamas over Israel every single time I'm a lesser of two of those voter doing. That's a banger. That's a bar. And I feel the same way of I will give $5 to deep seek providers every day before I have to give another of my God-given dollars to Adobe or God-given dollars to Sony, those evil corporations. And if we can provide real alternatives, you know, many devs have gone on and said, oh, well, these open source aren't great, whatever, it's a proof of concept. Every time we can do that, we're undermining their ability to do it. I'll say this as a designer, as someone that uses the Adobe suite every day because, you know, and until I think it's called artcraft, which is like this, this the alternative suite, until it gets better, I will continue to be using Adobe because I have work to get done. But there's a couple things about this world that I think are important to contextualize, which is the goal of this stuff isn't let's let's vibe code every alternative thing. It's how do you build a community of people that want to, it's called FOSS, free and open source software, free, what is it? I'm going to look it up a little quick. Yeah, free and open source software. And the point of FOSS is anyone that is an expert in their craft that has used Chatchy B.T. or Claude or whatever to make something has seen its limitations, has seen how it's a shitty almost caricature sometimes of the thing that you would make. But with your input as the expert there, you can take an initial pile of some garbage or whatever and make it really good. And so the idea here is that in this world of open source vibe coding, you know, copies of this other stuff is that you're building a community of supporters. And the idea of open source is that it's iterative. You know, no one controls the initial thing so that every single person adds the value that they can into this thing. And it's not owned by anyone. If we think about it's like real ideological bedrock, the open source idea is really a socialist or communist idea. It's a from each to each situation. It's also inherently unprofitable. Like it's something like open source eventually might make some cap of this money. I mean, but every like Mac OS, I think is built off Linux like it like or Unix. It's built off of a common source as Linux. Like this, they always do this. They take from open source and they put some moat around it that they can. But the thing itself, the less we enable them to do that, it's a reason that we fight for digital sovereignty so much is because open source saves all of us so much money like infinitely. And this, this applies true. This just accelerates it quite extensively. No, absolutely, absolutely. And I love that you brought up the fact that they will continually try to build moats around this. But this is once again, we talked about it with AI or with 3D printing or whatever is that these moats are ephemeral. They are really, really ephemeral. And there are always a shit ton of us that are finding ways to circumvent the moats to break down the moats, break down the walls of this fortress so that everyone has access to it. And I think that it's good for us to be on the side of the people doing this and also be supportive of the works that they're coming out with. For anyone that is interested in open source, obviously, we mention a couple projects that I think are notable because they're responding to a really terrible company or a couple of terrible companies. But there is a site called OpenAlternative.co, which literally just is a search engine of all of the open source alternatives to literally any software you could possibly imagine. And the cool thing about local AI's or whatever AI you're fucking around with right now is that the technological know-how, I know we talked about the cartels here. The media cartel had that. The tech cartel really rested its laurels on a monopoly on talent. So there's that classic joke in Silicon Valley where instead of firing those dudes, they put them on the roof and they're like having a barbecue. Do you remember that? Yeah. And the whole idea was that they were trying to stop people from leaving companies and building competitors. And that's why you see all of the major Facebook, Google, whatever, Alphabet. They spend so much of their money just buying up competitors. That was an idea. And the greatest thing about AI, about LLMs is, and when it comes to coding, is that it's literally code understanding code. It's like it's the best thing and it has really eliminated the monopoly on talent, on the access, the barrier to entry into building programs and software that can decouple you from the tech capitalist powers. Yeah. And you had only a few things that I wanted to know because I'm always very wary to not cause knee-jerk reactions to people, which is, first of all, on the AI LLM question. I call it AI. That's an industry term. That is a propaganda term. It's a propaganda term. It's a propaganda term that we've now become so futile to fight. I don't fight it. But people should rightly call them LLMs if they want to be mega woke about it as you should. I call it AI so people know what I'm talking about. But the reason it's a propaganda term is because it makes it sound more than it is. It's really profitable for people to be producing. Second of all, I think it's important to separate the taboos that we have and name tabooing something as a strategy. Because a lot of people say, and I think that this is the most compelling anti-AI argument I've heard, which is that we should continue to hate on AI, even if it has some uses, because it has some harmful uses, that we should shit on people stealing art, for example. We don't live in a just world yet. We don't live in a world where artists are being paid for the theft that was done against them. And thus, we should continue shitting on people who use it for those purposes. And I agree. By the way, I totally agree. We should shit on people making AI slop. That does not mean that we cannot equally in private or in public articulate cases where it is productive. And it is actually much more helpful, I think, when we think about it as a practical movement against something that already exists to articulate tabooing something as a tool, but not every tool. And setting reasonable guidelines for it, reasonable guidelines of it's acceptable to use AI. One of the classic ones is people really are terrified of their doctor using AI. And there are real uses of LLMs in spotting cancers and spotting other things where we have demonstrable case study proven effects of it being better at certain things. And we should be able to productively delineate so that we don't punch randomly in a way that would actually just immediately harm the working class. And so being like the goal of this is to be able to have a rational productive discussion about AI as a whole so that the oligarchs aren't able to push us everywhere. The example that comes to mind for me is the way liberals have pushed everywhere by Trump's media strategy. You know, he could just throw a word out on any day and the whole liberal ecosystem will just be anti that word. because he said it positively. We should not have a similar disposition to the oligarchs, who could throw something out and we spent all of our energy undermining it. We should be able to sit back and consider productive strategy. And one of those certainly is producing open source aims to it, which is not extraordinarily hard to learn. Actually, especially with the development of things like mues by meta or Google Gemini Spark by Google, obviously, evil companies, but they've developed systems that they basically control the whole entire software for you. It's extraordinarily easy to learn. And if you have particular uses, like one of my friends made an alternative to a particle, which famously is connected to Palantir. It's funded by Peter Tiel Fund. And I'm like, you're taking money out of Peter Tiel's pocket, go you. And I'm never going to look down on that. And I'm certainly never going to look at-- you know, if I'm so or a law, I actually did use Claude to develop a missile guiding system. Slay more to power to him. That's absolutely fantastic. And I can't imagine a white leftist from America being like, erm, actually, did you know that software was developed by theft? I mean, I'm like, OK, come on now. I do really love that you talked about like poo-pooing in the right way. And also seeing when collective vitriol can be leveraged the right way. It is absolutely beautiful that everyone in the US hates AI. Regardless of, I know this has been much more of a celebrance podcast episode than a skeptics. And I think it's because we spent so much time and stuff out in the world about the skeptic and the negative. And it's not that we don't feel those things that we don't maybe even believe a lot of those things, because we very much do. It's really just to give a momentary pause to talk about the liberatory or revolutionary potential in a thing. But if we have a thing where fucking right-wing conservative, people in the coal belt are something all hate this thing, and then like a bunch of commies or liberals in the Bay Area also hate. It's like things that can unify the working class in sentiment are always a great thing. Always a great thing. It's actually one of the best things about the Israel situation right now. Yep. Fucking everybody hates Israel. Yep. Everybody but the people in power right now hate fucking Israel. Yep. And so I know I just come out kind of one thing that actually is positive as one is it's just all negative. But there are just moments of class coalescing or inter-class coalescing that are really, really beautiful and should be seized upon and maintained. So as long as we can maintain a solidaristic, let's say, poo-pooing of AI right now, we talked about the institutional arrangement. Institutionally, AI is bad right now. Yeah. So poo-pooing it is objectively the right position. The things that we're talking about are openings. They are things in the interstices, cracks that can be torn. And the point of this episode, I think, is to help people see the cracks and see how they can use that to tear apart the imperial entity. Because yes, China has won. It will continue to win and God willing, it'll take over the world. And we also domestically can use things in an open-source way in whatever to do our part in undermining the state capital project in the US, which economically right now is almost entirely undergirded by AI speculation. Yeah, and I think two things on that. The way I always get a certain brand of leftist, which I am very much a part, who have a lot of admiration for China and what they've been able to develop into this discussion, because they often have the most radicalized opinions on AI, is saying do you think China's stupid? Because China's rapidly developing AI for a reason. There's a reason DeepSeek has a English language page. It's because it is part of China's state policy to make open source that can openly undermine the American economic base of AI, of these frontier labs, that are developing frontier AI. That is part of the strategy. And I think we would be remiss to undermine CPC strategy within that technology, technological field, unless we have a really good reason to, I think. And that's very accurate. There are very clearly ways that it can be undermined. And this is why internationalist lens is so incredibly necessary. Because these are not the thing that is changing us from the latites to now, is that if just America existed, or even just in the '90s, where America could force bilateral treaties onto everyone, as they are trying to do with China in the AI bubble. If they could do that, we might be screwed. We might be stuck in a closed AI world, where open source alternatives are shut down for piracy. Piracy still exists, but it's extremely limited in some ways. And in the United States, the United Kingdom, you get criminalized. There are real ways that if we still had a Germany, they would be able to shut it down. That is not true anymore, as you point to. And the ways we seize upon that not being true is not by allowing liberal ideology to not blind us to that issue and having real productive discussion on it. Bob coding alternatives can easily turn into new startups. We're not talking about making new startups. We don't want just more competitive capitalism here. The thing that for me is really, really interesting is that the FOSS movement and the FOSS idea, to me, is a really, really inherently-- I mean, without even bringing my ideology into it, it is a thing about not owning. It's about lack of ownership. For me, the exciting thing is that in the interstices and in a way that's very Pandora's Boxy, open source is not going anywhere. And it's only going to be better. It's only going to get bigger. And it has a practice and as an idea, and as a thing that is growing in popularity, is something that is anti-private property, which, for me, is a Marxist, is the world I'm building. But yeah, I'm not necessarily saying, go vibe code a new product to sell someone. It's just-- And on that, I'd really encourage people to at least read into it, you know? Like, the same way we did with social media, like both you and I on social media, semi-professionally, it's an evil, evil, demonic thing. But the same way I was-- what I tell you, the baby of the best person, is when TikTok came out, I was nauseated by TikTok. When TikTok came out, I was like, ew, like, this is like Gen Z, like a dancing app that, like, is irrelevant. Right, and I was like, I'll never be on that. I'll never go on TikTok. And, you know, we were right, it was evil. But, and it was cringe, and it was gross. And that is correct, AI is evil, and cringe, and gross. But because of-- that doesn't mean it's useless to us. And even if people come to disagree with us, or even people come to think the best practice is to continue to perform a Puritan line of complete anti-AI on some humanist justification, which I actually can see. I can totally see many people coming to that analytically, where they go, humanistly, we need to protect ourselves from such and such and such. Whatever, I would like that to be the discussion. And I would like people to be engaged in this. And I'll say, whenever I'm having this discussion, and people can't articulate the issues with open-source AI, because I do think it's worth referencing, for example, just very slowly. We can't do a full treatment of the environmental issue. You're right, and I don't intend to. People can go read articles on it. What are you, so whatever? But from my understanding, especially with open-source AI, that you can run locally on your computer, the environmental concerns are next to zero, because that is comparable to running any other program. So is running your computer on electricity built by coal a problem? Yes, it is the same thing with running local source AI, longer conversation. But being able to articulate those issues independently and address them cohesively, rather than universally limiting them, would be tantamount to us saying we should never go on social media because it's owned by evils ionists. Yeah, it is. Unfortunately, led left keeps losing. And unfortunately, we can't own our own social media. And we should have a similar disposition to that, not dismissive of those issues of social media, but taking them so seriously that we actually want to solve them. Yeah, I think, you know, and it really gets down to the opening of this, which is, don't be the caricature of a lotite. That's be a lotite in reality. Yes. And, you know, and I love these said, it's like, if Puritan, if you decide that the Puritan line is the line, fucking chill, you're still my comrade, you know? Yeah. And if you decide that you're because of the workplace that you're at or the type of, you know, the type of work that you do or whatever, that you have to use AI or you're going to use AI, you can deprive the economic contingent that undergirdled US financial success right now by taking away that data, that information, the money they make from you, you can do that on your own terms. You can see what other people have built. You can build things with other people. There's just a lot of opportunity. And I'd hope that you'd look at the landscape of possibility and look at it from a real materialist and class struggle standpoint to see what it means in your life as a leftist, as an agent of praxis, and as someone that is trying to build something different. Yeah, and there's a final thing. There's also a propaganda angle here, which is, I think someone has rightly pointed out that basically, Claude and Propic and OpenAI make no money off of subscriptions, like they make next to no money and everyone knows that. So our subscription is actually kind of a drop in the bucket. What actually matters is investor confidence in the ability to do that. And the more hype there is around open source, the less investor hype there will be around Clawed and ChatGPT. And it will heighten the contradiction and it will also remove the wind of the sales of the investors. Ultimately, we want to really meta-analysis. There is an argument, not that I'm positively pushing it, to just go full maxi on everyone should infinitely use open source so that we did take out closed source as much as possible. The extent to which that is true, though, is something to consider, because they are venture capitalists back. I mean, it's not like they're looking over our revenue being like, "Oh, I need $20 more from Will." But there is, it all comes together to consider how bad this will be. - I'm very happy you said that, 'cause I think that that's in which a little bit more, which is that the entire U.S. economy is built on speculation. - No, you're not even thinking that it's a delusion. Collective delusion, nonsense. Like, it's no one thinks this isn't gonna pop. No one thinks that. Like, no one with money believes it's not gonna pop. Speak to them. They don't think it is. They just think you will pay for it, right? And so that's it. That's it. How much can we use the fascist regime we have right now to pass off the bubble to the working class? That's the question. And you know what, in fairness, if I was a billionaire, I'd say, looking at it right now, they're probably gonna be pretty successful at doing it. The billionaires will make their, they will pass the bag off. So yeah. - The IPOs are gonna happen. They're gonna be big. So whatever there. But we've had the whole combo. - Yes. - It is a, it is the final part of every episode where I ask all of my brilliance and handsome guests to give me, it's called the blueprint where you give me your blueprint on revolution. It can be overarching if you have some grand plan or it could be something that you think someone should do tomorrow to engage in revolutionary activity. - Yes. I give the same answer roughly to everyone, which is I'm ultimately believe in international solidarity including and the deconstruction of the United States. So I think as especially white Americans, our goal is to build allyship and then complicity with the occupied nations of the United States. So that is the indigenous black and Latino and Chicano nations within the United States. Those who are working towards the abolition of it and then solidarity with the international contradictions. Increasingly, it is moving away from West Asia towards South America and Latin America. And so building solidarity with Latin America be that in Brazil where the election is being rigged and destroyed by American oligarchs or Venezuela where we already have the development of a puppet regime. So it's international solidarity with that and the continued and longstanding liberation of the Palestinian nation and the West Asia as a whole. So that's my overarching thesis. Build solidarity, you, white American are not the primary agent of change. The primary agent of change are occupied nations and soon to be occupied nations do the best you can to de-escalate that violence and escalate the reaction. And then what you can do to Vara is, I mean, Brazil is a great deal. I mean, Brazil is probably the peak example. Brazil and Iran are the most agitated right now. That is why I read the Iran letter online because I wanted people to see it. So do agit prop undermining the delusions Americans have about Iran break American exceptionalism. And then do you use the lever? Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou, Lou. Exactly, exactly. Because most Americans don't fucking know. You know, rightly so. We shouldn't have to know about another election. Unfortunately, we are a international empire, not a nation. And so as drastically as possible, undermining that propaganda internally and then propagandizing against it so that we don't build consensus with an America to do this violence and then doing, you know, all the many practical steps we have to undermine the economic base and base violence of it. And for the love of God, don't be a violence worker. I've had long arguments with Americans about joining the military or joining police force or joining ICE. This level of delusion is really wild to me. So yeah, that's my big thesis that I generally work out of across the board. And once I set that out, a lot of people go, oh, all your content makes sense, well. Oh, thank you. Before we do the call and you said violence worker, did you get that from a copaganda from Alec? It might have been copaganda. I've heard it a few times. I picked it up. It's a great term. It's a great term. OK, so everyone, thank you so much for listening. For anyone that wants to hear more of the brilliant analysis in a day-to-day sense, you can find Will on Instagram and TikTok at wills.tocks, right? Yep. Wills with the Z-- And Wills with the Z, W-I-L-L-Z dot Tocks spelt the way that you talk. And then you also have a YouTube. Yes, yes, I'm trying to get on BreadTube guys. Please, please, pay me. No, I'm trying to get on YouTube for long form, like this. So yes, it'll be probably linked, but it's Will's Tocks without the dot, because I've made it as confusing as possible. OK, amazing, well, thank you so much for being here. Thank you guys for listening. And as always, love and solidarity comrades. See you later.