842
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
842 points (99.4% liked)
Fuck AI
6812 readers
893 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cap on how much they can own and control. Say, $100 million? Tough cookies if you think you deserve more.
How about they can own their own head on their shoulders if they are lucky
It absolutely staggers me that there are people out here trying to find out a way to make capitalism work. There is no "one neat trick". If you can accumulate wealth, then you accumulate power, and democracy under capitalism just puts the power of the state up for auction to the highest bidder.
Capitalism does not work. It can never work. It makes fascism inevitable. Capitalism needs to be completely left in the ashes of the past.
There is one way how capitalism can work, and it did work for a while:
Worker action, from voting to unionisation, strikes up to revolution are all things that happen under the umbrella of capitalism, and as much as capitalists want to ban that, it's all just part of the same coin.
If capitalists play nice and fair, pay good wages and make sure the workers have a decent live, then the system is stable and as a reward they get stability to make business.
If they get too greedy and squeeze the workers too hard, workers push back. They form unions, vote left, start striking, and in the worst case they destroy equipment and start a revolution. This is the kind of power that the people have.
In theory.
Due to clever manipulaton, the capitalists managed to divide the working class and pit them against each other. This worked fine for a few decades, but it's wearing thin. It will take maybe 5-15 years until it all comes to a head and explodes.
And OP is right. Back in the day you had to get the military to shoot their own people. With automated weapon systems and AI/robots performing more and more of the productivity, this balance shifts rapidly, and it will likely lead to a total system breakdown with unforeseeable results.
Trump was successful in lying to industrial sector unionized that he'd bring back manufacturing to the US. His direct harm to that, and agricultural, sector shouldn't take that long to break the disillusionment. ie midterms. Q4 GDP, despite massive AI/datacenter investment cycle, grew at under 1%, with real economy contracting. The 45 year GOP plan of trickle down oligarchist/corporatist supremacism should be attacked more strongly for the lie that it is.
The Soviet Union as a counterweight was good for worker benefits as well. Keep the workers happy, keep the machine running.
Western Euro-Communism was seen as a real threat during the 1960s and 70s.
Totally this. The capitalists feared that yet another country could spiral into revolution and then communism, so they had to keep the workers happy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union combined with neoliberalism and globalism shifted the balance. Now they could always threaten their workers "If you are unhappy, we'll move production to Singapore or Vietnam. So behave if you want to have a job."
With AI and robots this shifts further. Let's see where this goes.
It’s not just moving industry to countries with cheap labor, there’s also importing cheap labor.
These two things have positive effects for workers elsewhere because they get skilled and comparatively well paid jobs.
A fully globalized economy should eventually balance itself out regarding wages for similarly skilled jobs.
It will be fascinating to see a post scarcity economy. Will all people work as artists, personal trainers, motivational speakers, artisanal bakers, and such?
In theory. In practice, the planet is too big for unified union action or unified political action. You can unionize on a country level and call general strikes on a country level. You can't do that on planet scale. Globalized economy sidesteps the power of unions and the power of the people in general.
Technically, we have been living in a post-scarcity economy for the last 50-70 years already. We have a massive global food overproduction. We have more than enough resources to give everyone a pretty nice standard of living. But on the one hand we have a massively inefficient economical system, where huge parts of the population do redundant work and bullshit jobs, while another huge part of the population do tasks that just exist to prop up the system (e.g. the whole financial and marketing sectors only exists because of the capitalist system, they aren't doing anything worthwhile at all).
We live in an artificial scarcity society, because capitalism needs artificial scarcity to work.
People sell their labour for money, which they then use to buy stuff from the capitalists, and the capitalists use (part of) the money to buy labour from people.
With AI and robots, this will soon not be necessary any more. The labour of the people will be even less relevant than it is today. So the question then becomes whether (a) the system will collapse and what will happen afterwards or (b) if we will just pump even more bullshit into our bullshit jobs to prop up the old system.
No, they will all starve, because they can't make their own food, and are no longer valuable.
Yeah, even the concept of money needs to be abandoned. We don't need it.
If we don't need it, why does practically every civilization invent it?
What's your alternative? Barter?
Yes.
Lame
"we" don't need it. Despite every large civilisation inventing it, small civilisation (150 person village) just doesn't. And can thrive quite happily without it.
It's when civilisation gets larger that we "need" money. You can't build the LHC or Artemis 2 without some form of intermediary currency. The problem is, to do that you end up with the issues of power imbalances.
So... "we" do "need" it.
("We" in this case being everyone who lives in something larger than a 150-person village, which is the overwhelming majority of us)
("Need" meaning very accommodating for trade, which seems to be important to the vast majority of all societies ever)
We will only get 150 people villages if civilizations collapses, billions die, and humanity turns to subsistence farming. Even among 150 people, there will be trade in goods and favors. People have different talents and skills.
As soon as trade develops between villages, currency becomes extremely useful. There are seasonal goods, especially in agriculture. Sheep are shorn in spring to produce wool, much earlier than harvest for Apples and grain. So if you want to exchange wool for Apples, you need to make a contract or IOU note to deliver Apples in a few months. Now you basically have vouchers for commodities. You can then trade the Apple voucher for new metal shears because you don’t actually want Apples. Suddenly you trade vouchers for vouchers and it becomes a little cumbersome. There’s also always the risk of a voucher not being honored. So the village council decides to issue standardized vouchers that can be redeemed for grain in the community granary. Currency is reinvented because It’s extremely useful.
Anarcho-Primitivism is certainly a romantic ideology.
$50 million.
If anyone is going to put money toward politics, it needs to either be not enough to affect outcomes significantly or it needs to be a large enough part of their wealth to hurt.
If you've ever wondered what billionaires spend money on, politicians.
They spend it on buying politicians.