There is NO justification for privately owned corporate AI. It destroys jobs and people's ability to feed and care for themselves.
Government is needed to make sure that the benefits of AI are provided to the population instead of seven dorks masturbating into their piles of money.
There is NO justification for privately owned corporate AI.
Not that I actually like it, but I think privately owned corporate AI isn't the primary problem. It's the broken market that is the real problem creating some insane bubble that can (temporarily at best - but who cares for long-term effects nowadays) only be sustained by shoe-horning AI into 1001 applications that it can't fullfil properly.
Corporations competing with actual applications in fields where AI makes sense wouldn't be a problem, corporations competing for insane sums of financing by outpacing each other in terms of lies, fairy tales and trust-me-bro pseudo-science statements are. Because with insane amounts of money and nothing to actually show they instead spend a fraction of it on PR bullshit to advertise AI use in cases where it doesn't make sense, to get more money again. Rinse and repeat, with no actual value created.
That is the primary problem with AI. It literally prevents people in the country from being able to pay for necessities like food, water, shelter, clothing, et cetera.
In that respect, it is more than an optimization tool. It is a weapon that is used against the people of the country, and it prevents money from going into those employees bank accounts and out to those businesses it used to go out to.
So it negatively affects both individual people within the country AND the country's businesses' ability to make a profit.
For that reason, all AI should be owned by the government, and the government should use the resources that AI provides toward the welfare of the people in the country. There is zero justification in allowing the privatization of the benefits from it, regardless of how many competing AI companies there may be.
Yes, automation replaces jobs. In fact nearly every advance since long before the industrial revolution did. But it also increases the actual productivity per capita. So again the underlying problem is the system that transfers all gains up nowadays leaving less workers (with stagnating wages).
Not that would be sad with it gone, but we had capitalism decades ago and the system still worked for the most parts. It's the neoliberal lunacy pushed on us since the 80s/90s (depending on country).
Productivity is such a bullshit idea... Like how do you measure productivity? In GDP? Because in that sense, inflation increases productivity (nevermind that what that really means is that more money moved around simply because everything costs more). Or are you measuring units shipped? What units? In what way could these be equivalent. Output for outputs sake is the definition of bullshit jobs. Most of this productivity people talk about is actually just meaningless toiling for meaningless output. We aren't building homes or harvesting food or in any way bettering our lives, we are toiling towards tricking rocks into being forced to suffer consciousness or something as closely approximating that as possible. Leave the pretty rocks alone and do something useful, for something other than GDPee growth. In what way is making the number go whirrrrr worth destroying the biosphere? Nobody is happy. The rich are miserable because as it turns out even being the first person to a trillion net worth can't fill the dad shaped hole in your heart and the poor are miserable because meaningless toi... Show more...
Productivity is such a bullshit idea... Like how do you measure productivity? In GDP? Because in that sense, inflation increases productivity (nevermind that what that really means is that more money moved around simply because everything costs more). Or are you measuring units shipped? What units? In what way could these be equivalent. Output for outputs sake is the definition of bullshit jobs. Most of this productivity people talk about is actually just meaningless toiling for meaningless output. We aren't building homes or harvesting food or in any way bettering our lives, we are toiling towards tricking rocks into being forced to suffer consciousness or something as closely approximating that as possible. Leave the pretty rocks alone and do something useful, for something other than GDPee growth. In what way is making the number go whirrrrr worth destroying the biosphere? Nobody is happy. The rich are miserable because as it turns out even being the first person to a trillion net worth can't fill the dad shaped hole in your heart and the poor are miserable because meaningless toil is not a great recipe for fulfillment. This whole system up to and including AI needs to go full sui, so we can get back to picking fleas of eachother's backs... Or you know, whatever the fuck you feel like doing when society doesn't have a gun to your head.
Productivity is such a bullshit idea… Like how do you measure productivity? In GDP?
Yes, but normalised for buying power and per capita. Where I live the last several decades saw an increase by +250% in normalised economic output per capita, while at the same time real normalised wages stayed the same. Which marks a stark decoupling of economic output and wages (thus usually also pensions, taxes (public budgets), sometimes health care - all linked to wages) that did not exist before. What happens to all those gains? They get transfered upwards to a few rich people, while the system is now only based on less than a third of the economic output... Alas! "We can't afford proper pensions, social security or even just maintaining the existing infrastructure anymore" is the most sang song everywhere the neoliberal insanity rules.
And alongside it come fairy tales about demographics (how should the working people afford double the amount of people that need support? easy... when everyone of them is 6x as productive -> see output per capita stil
... Show more...
Productivity is such a bullshit idea… Like how do you measure productivity? In GDP?
Yes, but normalised for buying power and per capita. Where I live the last several decades saw an increase by +250% in normalised economic output per capita, while at the same time real normalised wages stayed the same. Which marks a stark decoupling of economic output and wages (thus usually also pensions, taxes (public budgets), sometimes health care - all linked to wages) that did not exist before. What happens to all those gains? They get transfered upwards to a few rich people, while the system is now only based on less than a third of the economic output... Alas! "We can't afford proper pensions, social security or even just maintaining the existing infrastructure anymore" is the most sang song everywhere the neoliberal insanity rules.
And alongside it come fairy tales about demographics (how should the working people afford double the amount of people that need support? easy... when everyone of them is 6x as productive -> see output per capita still more than 3 times as high) and a lot of agitation pitting the "lazy stupid youth" against the "greedy old generation" when in reality they get all fucked over by the same small minority (with the old ones just having a better buffer because they already worked when the system wasn't that broken).
Long story short: Industrialisation killed so many jobs... but in reality the people still working suddenly made enough to provide for the rest because of massive production gains (and so children didn't need to work anymore, women could stay home and raise the kids etc). Automation killed so many jobs, yet again the actual productivity per capita massively increased. In general development of tech but also society happened and increased life expectancy as well as productivity side by side. And now we are talking about the impact of AI. Guess what... the problem is again not AI. It's having changed the system to the point where workers get exactly nothing from productivity gains because we need to push imaginary stock market numbers and shareholder profits instead. Well done Reagan, Mulroney, Thatcher, Mitterand, Kohl and countless others...
themurphy
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •f314
in reply to themurphy • • •HiddenLayer555
in reply to f314 • • •Calfpupa [she/her]
in reply to f314 • • •eldavi
in reply to f314 • • •obvs
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •There is NO justification for privately owned corporate AI. It destroys jobs and people's ability to feed and care for themselves.
Government is needed to make sure that the benefits of AI are provided to the population instead of seven dorks masturbating into their piles of money.
Ooops
in reply to obvs • • •Not that I actually like it, but I think privately owned corporate AI isn't the primary problem. It's the broken market that is the real problem creating some insane bubble that can (temporarily at best - but who cares for long-term effects nowadays) only be sustained by shoe-horning AI into 1001 applications that it can't fullfil properly.
Corporations competing with actual applications in fields where AI makes sense wouldn't be a problem, corporations competing for insane sums of financing by outpacing each other in terms of lies, fairy tales and trust-me-bro pseudo-science statements are. Because with insane amounts of money and nothing to actually show they instead spend a fraction of it on PR bullshit to advertise AI use in cases where it doesn't make sense, to get more money again. Rinse and repeat, with no actual value created.
obvs
in reply to Ooops • • •Privately owned AI displaces jobs.
That is the primary problem with AI. It literally prevents people in the country from being able to pay for necessities like food, water, shelter, clothing, et cetera.
In that respect, it is more than an optimization tool. It is a weapon that is used against the people of the country, and it prevents money from going into those employees bank accounts and out to those businesses it used to go out to.
So it negatively affects both individual people within the country AND the country's businesses' ability to make a profit.
For that reason, all AI should be owned by the government, and the government should use the resources that AI provides toward the welfare of the people in the country. There is zero justification in allowing the privatization of the benefits from it, regardless of how many competing AI companies there may be.
Ooops
in reply to obvs • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to Ooops • • •I.e. Capitalism.
Ooops
in reply to SocialistVibes01 • • •queermunist she/her
in reply to Ooops • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to Ooops • • •You're obviously not a third worlder and you don't know a thing about the international division of labor.
Ooops
in reply to SocialistVibes01 • • •SocialistVibes01
in reply to Ooops • • •Free_Appalachia
in reply to Ooops • • •Ooops
in reply to Free_Appalachia • • •Yes, but normalised for buying power and per capita. Where I live the last several decades saw an increase by +250% in normalised economic output per capita, while at the same time real normalised wages stayed the same. Which marks a stark decoupling of economic output and wages (thus usually also pensions, taxes (public budgets), sometimes health care - all linked to wages) that did not exist before. What happens to all those gains? They get transfered upwards to a few rich people, while the system is now only based on less than a third of the economic output... Alas! "We can't afford proper pensions, social security or even just maintaining the existing infrastructure anymore" is the most sang song everywhere the neoliberal insanity rules.
And alongside it come fairy tales about demographics (how should the working people afford double the amount of people that need support? easy... when everyone of them is 6x as productive -> see output per capita stil
... Show more...Yes, but normalised for buying power and per capita. Where I live the last several decades saw an increase by +250% in normalised economic output per capita, while at the same time real normalised wages stayed the same. Which marks a stark decoupling of economic output and wages (thus usually also pensions, taxes (public budgets), sometimes health care - all linked to wages) that did not exist before. What happens to all those gains? They get transfered upwards to a few rich people, while the system is now only based on less than a third of the economic output... Alas! "We can't afford proper pensions, social security or even just maintaining the existing infrastructure anymore" is the most sang song everywhere the neoliberal insanity rules.
And alongside it come fairy tales about demographics (how should the working people afford double the amount of people that need support? easy... when everyone of them is 6x as productive -> see output per capita still more than 3 times as high) and a lot of agitation pitting the "lazy stupid youth" against the "greedy old generation" when in reality they get all fucked over by the same small minority (with the old ones just having a better buffer because they already worked when the system wasn't that broken).
Long story short: Industrialisation killed so many jobs... but in reality the people still working suddenly made enough to provide for the rest because of massive production gains (and so children didn't need to work anymore, women could stay home and raise the kids etc). Automation killed so many jobs, yet again the actual productivity per capita massively increased. In general development of tech but also society happened and increased life expectancy as well as productivity side by side. And now we are talking about the impact of AI. Guess what... the problem is again not AI. It's having changed the system to the point where workers get exactly nothing from productivity gains because we need to push imaginary stock market numbers and shareholder profits instead. Well done Reagan, Mulroney, Thatcher, Mitterand, Kohl and countless others...