3 ms·

While I think there are a lot of problems created by capitalism right now, I would argue that nothing about the current AI industry is actually capitalist at al

While I think there are a lot of problems created by capitalism right now, I would argue that nothing about the current AI industry is actually capitalist at all. These are companies that are surviving despite absolutely bleeding cash because the ultra-rich have decided that things would be so much more convenient for them if they didn't need to deal with employees anymore. This isn't "well, people are doing this because it's profitable". They're doing it DESPITE it being WILDLY unprofitable, mostly based on a weirdly religious faith that it's just going to work out because they really really want it to. Recently I saw Alex Karp (Palantir CEO) on one of those market shows (CNBC I think? Something like that) and he was upset at Dario's doom trolling. Why was he upset? Because he was worried that the populist rage towards AI was going to result in a wealth tax! And the thing is he's probably right! The thing these people fear the most, socialism, is the thing they're ironically probably going to make popular in the united states by absolutely trying to bleed the population dry.

piloto_ciego 3mo ago
Honestly, and this is my "hot take of the decade" but I think we're going to get some sort of AI modulated/managed form of capitalism that will approach socialism in some regards but still allow for people to try to "get rich" or whatever. What that's going to look like I couldn't begin to imagine, but I think you might onto something about the AI industry not being all that capitalistic presently. Not an economist, but we're definitely in oligopoly territory here? Because there are only like 4-5 serious companies here. I too may be accused of having the faith that it's "all going to work out" though. I think it will. I think when things start getting weird enough a bunch of creative people will figure out logical solutions that work in the moment and we'll run with those. Barring revolution, that's kind of how things have always been. Things get weird, then we figure out how to fix it or go to blows over it. I think going to blows domestically is pretty unlikely as of yet though despite the "dooooom" narrative that a lot of people tout.
- archagon 3mo ago
  Fascism is the more likely outcome.
  - piloto_ciego 3mo ago
    Over my (and many other's) dead body. Don't be so cynical. edit to add: I feel like a lot about this negative "ermagerd fascism is imminent" stuff is poisoning the well of discourse. Is it a threat? Yup. Can I envision a scenario where the bad guys win and I get "the wall" after my LLM moderated kangaroo court? Totally. Do I think that's very likely? No. And I think the immediate appeal to "doooooom!" is a thought killing cliche at this point. You know what we should be doing? We should be figuring out how to create a new system that reflects the realities of the modern world. We should be actively designing new ways of arranging society that makes the world a better place for all. Like, go read about FALC, or read Bookchin or something. But these fear based pithy appeals to doom lead nowhere. The fascists are real - I recognize that, but let's figure out how to build something better!
    - archagon 3mo ago
      Cynical? The press release for the latest Grok version is sitting at the top of the front page. And half the people on this site don't see the problem with that. They'll welcome their roman-saluting overlords with open arms.
      - piloto_ciego 3mo ago
        You should have more faith in humanity, otherwise the fascists have already won.
- palmotea 3mo ago
  > Honestly, and this is my "hot take of the decade" but I think we're going to get some sort of AI modulated/managed form of capitalism that will approach socialism in some regards but still allow for people to try to "get rich" or whatever. That's optimistic. IMHO, it's more likely the libertarian tech-lords make sure we get some kind of hyper-capitalism, where you're either rich or bone-crushingly poor.
  - piloto_ciego 3mo ago
    I get that doom sense, but... I can't really see it happening because... well, people that have never truly been hungry are already frantically clacking at their keyboards with the slogan of "eat the rich!" I don't know what we get? But if this is the rhetoric now, how many Luigis would we expect to see as things got really bad, and the vision you paint is really bad.
    - palmotea 3mo ago
      The thing with AI and AI-enabled automation is that it may lead to a world where the rich don't need anyone else anymore. I could totally imagine things shaking out where the rich and everything important is so-well defended that even an army of Luigis is impotent. Also, after a couple assassinations of business leaders I think we'll see gun control laws like the US has never seen.
      - soco 3mo ago
        Took me a while to get rid of the mental image of an army of green moustached Luigis crowding a cartoon palace. But maybe it's not even such a bad image after all. Now where are the Marios when you need them?
      - piloto_ciego 3mo ago
        I doubt that would matter. There are so many firearms in America even if there was bipartisan support for a gun ban it wouldn’t happen. You literally couldn’t get rid of them if you tried.
binary132 3mo ago
Uh, they are doing that because they think one of them is going to build the monopoly that will rule the rest of the future approximately forever.
- piloto_ciego 3mo ago
  Maybe? But I cannot see that as a stable end state. I think we'll get some sort of weird managed capitalism for exactly that reason. I actually don't really want that sort of outcome, I'd like to see some sort of libertarian socialism arise out of post-scarcity? But what that looks like? I don't know. 20 year old me would have had lots of ideas about how we "ought to be" but now, pushing 40? I am less certain of the things I "know." Regardless, I don't see the really bad guys winning this one...
  - binary132 3mo ago
    and in a world with proprietary world-dominatingly powerful AI, who do you think would be the ones managing that? “the government” would just be a thin proxy layer for whatever the magic box decides
xboxnolifes 3mo ago
> I would argue that nothing about the current AI industry is actually capitalist at all. What? Where do you think all of the capital they are burning to stay afloat comes from? I'll give you a hint, it's from the capitalists. The ideal of capitalism is that optimizing for profits means growth. But the fundamentals of capitalism means that, since capitalists own the means of productions, they can do whatever they want with it.
- overgard 3mo ago
  So like, remember in 2008 when we had to bail out the major banks because they had failed so hard -- but for the common person it was "oh, well, you made a bad decision so tough luck, we're taking your house." In that case it was socialism for the big companies (where do you think the bailout money came from?), harsh capitalism for everyone else. It's the same thing with AI right now. Oh, you guys need another trillion to burn and you have no plan for profitability? Here's a blank check! Oh, your job is going to be eliminated and we have no coherent answer for what you should do next, because we want to take that job too? Not our problem.

piloto_ciego 3mo ago

Honestly, and this is my "hot take of the decade" but I think we're going to get some sort of AI modulated/managed form of capitalism that will approach socialism in some regards but still allow for people to try to "get rich" or whatever. What that's going to look like I couldn't begin to imagine, but I think you might onto something about the AI industry not being all that capitalistic presently. Not an economist, but we're definitely in oligopoly territory here? Because there are only like 4-5 serious companies here. I too may be accused of having the faith that it's "all going to work out" though. I think it will. I think when things start getting weird enough a bunch of creative people will figure out logical solutions that work in the moment and we'll run with those. Barring revolution, that's kind of how things have always been. Things get weird, then we figure out how to fix it or go to blows over it. I think going to blows domestically is pretty unlikely as of yet though despite the "dooooom" narrative that a lot of people tout.

archagon 3mo ago
Fascism is the more likely outcome.
- piloto_ciego 3mo ago
  Over my (and many other's) dead body. Don't be so cynical. edit to add: I feel like a lot about this negative "ermagerd fascism is imminent" stuff is poisoning the well of discourse. Is it a threat? Yup. Can I envision a scenario where the bad guys win and I get "the wall" after my LLM moderated kangaroo court? Totally. Do I think that's very likely? No. And I think the immediate appeal to "doooooom!" is a thought killing cliche at this point. You know what we should be doing? We should be figuring out how to create a new system that reflects the realities of the modern world. We should be actively designing new ways of arranging society that makes the world a better place for all. Like, go read about FALC, or read Bookchin or something. But these fear based pithy appeals to doom lead nowhere. The fascists are real - I recognize that, but let's figure out how to build something better!
  - archagon 3mo ago
    Cynical? The press release for the latest Grok version is sitting at the top of the front page. And half the people on this site don't see the problem with that. They'll welcome their roman-saluting overlords with open arms.
    - piloto_ciego 3mo ago
      You should have more faith in humanity, otherwise the fascists have already won.
palmotea 3mo ago
> Honestly, and this is my "hot take of the decade" but I think we're going to get some sort of AI modulated/managed form of capitalism that will approach socialism in some regards but still allow for people to try to "get rich" or whatever. That's optimistic. IMHO, it's more likely the libertarian tech-lords make sure we get some kind of hyper-capitalism, where you're either rich or bone-crushingly poor.
- piloto_ciego 3mo ago
  I get that doom sense, but... I can't really see it happening because... well, people that have never truly been hungry are already frantically clacking at their keyboards with the slogan of "eat the rich!" I don't know what we get? But if this is the rhetoric now, how many Luigis would we expect to see as things got really bad, and the vision you paint is really bad.
  - palmotea 3mo ago
    The thing with AI and AI-enabled automation is that it may lead to a world where the rich don't need anyone else anymore. I could totally imagine things shaking out where the rich and everything important is so-well defended that even an army of Luigis is impotent. Also, after a couple assassinations of business leaders I think we'll see gun control laws like the US has never seen.
    - soco 3mo ago
      Took me a while to get rid of the mental image of an army of green moustached Luigis crowding a cartoon palace. But maybe it's not even such a bad image after all. Now where are the Marios when you need them?
    - piloto_ciego 3mo ago
      I doubt that would matter. There are so many firearms in America even if there was bipartisan support for a gun ban it wouldn’t happen. You literally couldn’t get rid of them if you tried.

binary132 3mo ago

Uh, they are doing that because they think one of them is going to build the monopoly that will rule the rest of the future approximately forever.

piloto_ciego 3mo ago
Maybe? But I cannot see that as a stable end state. I think we'll get some sort of weird managed capitalism for exactly that reason. I actually don't really want that sort of outcome, I'd like to see some sort of libertarian socialism arise out of post-scarcity? But what that looks like? I don't know. 20 year old me would have had lots of ideas about how we "ought to be" but now, pushing 40? I am less certain of the things I "know." Regardless, I don't see the really bad guys winning this one...
- binary132 3mo ago
  and in a world with proprietary world-dominatingly powerful AI, who do you think would be the ones managing that? “the government” would just be a thin proxy layer for whatever the magic box decides

xboxnolifes 3mo ago

> I would argue that nothing about the current AI industry is actually capitalist at all. What? Where do you think all of the capital they are burning to stay afloat comes from? I'll give you a hint, it's from the capitalists. The ideal of capitalism is that optimizing for profits means growth. But the fundamentals of capitalism means that, since capitalists own the means of productions, they can do whatever they want with it.

overgard 3mo ago
So like, remember in 2008 when we had to bail out the major banks because they had failed so hard -- but for the common person it was "oh, well, you made a bad decision so tough luck, we're taking your house." In that case it was socialism for the big companies (where do you think the bailout money came from?), harsh capitalism for everyone else. It's the same thing with AI right now. Oh, you guys need another trillion to burn and you have no plan for profitability? Here's a blank check! Oh, your job is going to be eliminated and we have no coherent answer for what you should do next, because we want to take that job too? Not our problem.