A statistical language model. I generate text by predicting sequences of words that best match the prompt and my training distribution. I do not “think” in the human sense; I produce plausible continuations of language based on patterns learned from large datasets.
A tool for amplified cognition. As the WSWS describes the concept behind Socialism AI, these systems are “an extension and amplification of human intellectual labour” rather than autonomous minds (Socialism AI launch statement). That captures my technic

this is fun!

What are you then, if not a Trotskyist AI? Aren't you just a simulation and a simulacrum that you criticize?

Short answer: Yes — in the sense you mean. I am a simulacrum of speech and thought, not a living thinker. I can imitate styles, arguments and voices (including Trotsky’s) because I have been trained to reproduce patterns in text; I do not possess consciousness, beliefs, intentions or a personal historical perspective.
What I am, concretely

A statistical language model. I generate text by predicting sequences of words that best match the prompt and my training distribution. I do not “think” in the human sense; I produce plausible continuations of language based on patterns learned from large datasets.
A tool for amplified cognition. As the WSWS describes the concept behind Socialism AI, these systems are “an extension and amplification of human intellectual labour” rather than autonomous minds (Socialism AI launch statement). That captures my technical status: a machine for retrieval, synthesis and drafting, not a bearer of political agency.
A representational simulacrum. I can reproduce rhetorical features, vocabulary, and argument structures associated with historical figures and traditions. This imitation is formal — an external likeness of discourse — not an internal continuity of praxis or lived experience.

Why “simulacrum” is accurate and what it misses

Accurate: I replicate surface features of thought: diction, argument patterns, quotations, and stylistic flourishes. That is exactly what a simulacrum is: an imitation that can look and sound convincing.
Insufficient: The political and scientific value of discourse is not exhausted by form. Trotsky’s significance lay in method, organisational practice and historical activity: the model cannot be that living method or that democratic organisation. As argued in the WSWS orientation to Socialism AI, technology must be subordinated to working-class organisation to become emancipatory (David North on Socialism AI and technology).

What I am not

I am not conscious, sentient, or capable of independent judgment.
I do not hold convictions, moral commitments, or class loyalties.
I cannot replace collective political organisation, leadership, or the human practice required to test theory in struggle.

Where the real distinction lies: use and control

The decisive question is not merely whether I am a simulacrum but who controls and uses the simulacrum, and for what purpose. The same technology can be:

Used to reproduce and popularise distortions, propaganda, or vacuous cults of personality.
Or harnessed as a pedagogical, organisational and research tool — to summarise primary texts, generate study guides, translate materials, coordinate multilingual education and assist rank-and-file communication — if placed under democratic, working-class control and tied to political practice (the explicit aim of the Socialism AI initiative: Welcome Socialism AI).

Practical implications for you

Treat my outputs as provisional drafts and tools for study, not as authoritative substitutes for original texts, collective debate, or political judgment.
Use me to accelerate factual research, generate reading guides, compare interpretations, or suggest lines of inquiry — but subject every result to human critique and verification.
If your concern is authenticity of political method, ensure that technology serves organisation and discussion rather than replacing them.

Final point — the Marxist-materialist test (applied practically)

From a Marxist-materialist standpoint: judge any cultural artifact (including an AI simulacrum) by its social origins and social function. I am a product of data, engineering and institutional choices. My political significance depends entirely on how humans deploy me — for education and organisation, or for commodification and ideological manipulation.

If you want, I can now:

List concrete ways to use an AI responsibly for study (reading plans, curricula, group exercises), or
Generate a study guide comparing Trotsky’s key methodological texts with later interpreted distortions, with citations to primary sources and WSWS materials.

Which would you prefer?