AI mania, as described in an essay by Nikhil Suresh titled, ‘AI Mania Is Eviscerating Global Decision Making’, is still very much with us, bereft of life but still moving, like a zombie, aimlessly shambling about in search of a gruesome meal.

Even so, cracks are appearing.

These cracks are the result of no promises being kept and very little (actually, no) money being made despite the billions spent, tossed into a giant, flaming pit of anti-worker fueled delusion. The business press, such as Bloomberg, have noticed which has opened a space for critique and the cohort described as being ‘anti AI’. But as the old saying goes, ‘not all skin folk are kin folk.’ Not all ostensibly ‘anti AI’ or anti AI industry people are really anti at all. They are what Harry Zehner, writing in the Baffler Magazine, (September 2024) about support for Israel masquerading as critique, calls critical counterinsurgents.

Another term for what we’re seeing, as Dr. Olivia Guest tells us, is entryism. In an essay admirably direct in its title called ‘Entryism’, Dr, Guest describes the problem:

“In the context of the push back against AI, entryism takes on the form of actively sending infiltrators to join universities or related organisations (in the strongest case), or recruiting members of those institutions, or spreading rhetoric or cultish language (in the weakest, and likely easiest, case) in order to undermine push back against AI. The important part is to do all this by looking like one is not against the organisation’s goal (i.e. knowledge production and education) or even more insidiously by looking like one is staunchly anti AI explicitly. For the weaker case of rhetoric: success is measured by the organisation adopting harmful concepts through terminologically vacuous or damaging language (see me explaining this over video here).”

Corey Doctorow’s ‘enshittification’ thesis, or, statement is more like it, ‘thesis is far too grand, firmly falls into the entryist category. Doctorow tells us that once upon a time, the industry was good and now, no longer serving the interests of customers, it’s bad. At the foundation is a belief that the tech industry is essentially alright, but has gone astray. It’s a ‘critique’ that obscures fundamental issues.

Continuing her analysis, Dr, Guest writes:

“I have a core take away I must repeat: just because somebody claims to be anti AI does not mean they are not doing entryism. Sadly, that is (in isolation) entirely consistent with entryism. Yes, these people lie about their beliefs.

I repeat this quote from Marx that I put right at the top of our work critiquing this correlationist logic from 2023:

“[A]ll science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided. (Marx, 1894, p. 592)”

This is the logic of AI, of fascism, of sexism, of racism. That is, because things look a certain way, that therefore they are a certain way. Internal properties are wrongly derived from their superficial appearance.”

[…]

This is a fine essay which I highly recommend. Do not be fooled by appearances, the entryists walk among us, fifth columnists who undermine the clear minded analysis needed to resist.

Link

Entryism by Dr. Olivia Guest