The question is… why? What is the actual human benefit (not monetary).

If AI wrote and thought better by default then I wouldn't have to read the AI slop my co-workers send me.

IME, in prose writing, arguing with LLM can help a newer writer to gather 'the facts' (to help with research) and 'the objections to the facts' (same result) to anticipate an initial approach to the material. This can save a lot of organizational time. After which, newer writer can more confidently approach topics in their own voice.

Just let my work have a soul, please.

Eh, it's not __that__ simple.

It is, just don’t use a thing with no soul like ai if soul is what you’re after.

The point is that he may not using AI in any shape or form, Regardless, AI scrapes its work without explicit consent and then spits it back in "polished" soul free form.

Great comment. It really is that simple.

That is NOT possible.

Why not?

Because even though at work it looks like you’re tasked with creating use values, you’re only there as long as the use values you create can be exchanged in the market for a profit. So every humane drive to genuinely improve your work will clash with the external conditions of your existence within that setting. You’re not there to serve people, create beautiful things, solve problems, nu-uh. You’re there to keep capital flowing. It’s soulless.

Unless you work in the public sector, non-profit or charity.

To think that “non-profit” work is actually non-profit work is just to not have grasped the nature of labor. You have to ask yourself: Am I producing use values for the satisfaction of human needs or am I working on making sure the appropriation of value extraction from the production of use values continues happening?

In some very extreme cases, such as in the Red Cross or reformist organizations, your job looks very clear, direct, and “soulful”. You’re directly helping desperate people. But why have people gotten into that situation? What is the downstream effect of having you helping them. It’s profit. It’s always profit. You’re salvaging humanity for parts to be bought and sold again. It doesn’t make a dishonest work. It’s just equally soulless.

Your argument appears to be that if you redefine all of humanity to be mere grist for a capitalist machine, you can then redefine any altrustic act, as a measure to extract more profit.

Truly feat of semantic legerdemain

I don’t define anything. The truth is just that there’s no profit extraction without charity work. I’ve done lots of it. If you’ve done it, you know too.

As dark as it may seem to strip romantism out of which you call humanity, not only there isn’t a just salary for those who bear the weight of the machine, but also there’s isn’t even a salary per se.

If for you humanity is just doing seemingly nice guy work without question, call me a monster.

> The truth is just that there’s no profit extraction without charity work.

I'm not actually sure what you mean by this, so I can't really assess its truthiness

> not only there isn’t a just salary for those who bear the weight of the machine, but also there’s isn’t even a salary per se.

Or this - what do you mean?

>If for you humanity is just doing seemingly nice guy work without question, call me a monster.

Not even clear what you mean by this either.

My adversary has accused me of sophistry. As if I’m just a crafter of kaleidoscopes. I’m just giving back the compliment by calling out their romanticism.

Charity work can bring momentary fulfillment to a person. I’m not reducing humanity by situating it within the machine. You even have the right to reject the material proposition that charity work is a piece that composes the totality of the machine. But eventually all truth will be self evident, so let’s leave it to the reader.

I’m not your adversary, I’m just trying to understand your point.

Your original assertion was that ‘ you’re only there as long as the use values you create can be exchanged in the market for a profit.’

When I suggested that non-profit or public sector jobs could certainly have soul, your responses were pretty incomprehensible.

Can you explain your point clearly and succinctly?

Because you’re aiding exploitation either way. It’s the same machine, just another part of it.

Right. So it's not just work - any good or altruistic act, will by definition only act to stoke the machine.

It's certainly a way of thinking, I suppose

Incorrect. It’s mostly just work.

So if I carry out hip replacement surgery, at my own cost its good?

But if the NHS pays me to carry out hip replacement surgery - funded from tax revenue, but free to the patient, it's bad?

This is not a moral judgement. It doesn’t even matter from which pocket the money is coming from.