Live data from Hacker News

Marx, Keynes, and AI

unpopularfront.news

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#51
The central contradiction of capitalism, according to Karl Marx, is that production is social—it requires the coordinated labor of millions of people—but ownership remains private.

We got the first trillionaire while people were still starving, after he had slashed public funding to feed them.

It's obvious that we've entered late-stage capitalism, where it begins to consume itself. What's less obvious is that this was always destined to happen, and in fact can't be stopped. Because inevitably the wealthy and powerful rig the system to benefit themselves in ways that workers don't have the time/money/resources to resist individually.

When workers do join forces in solidarity to resist the economic violence perpetrated against them by capitalists, then their resistance is by definition not capitalism. So the endgame is temporary subjugation under an authoritarian system like fascism (which also can't last because workers outnumber owners) or socialism.

Knowing this, it should be obvious that the best chance that capitalists have to stave off their inevitable overthrow is to pay their taxes so that public works can somewhat provide the social safety net that socialism would provide. But of course they aren't doing that. They're doing the opposite. They feel themselves to be entitled, above the laws of economics, ironically due to their financial standing. The catch being that when they exempt themselves from law, they open themselves up to lawless behavior by their opponents. FAFO.

What I just summarized was the state of knowledge under an artificial scarcity model. It assumes finite resources because space travel didn't exist when socialism was invented. It will be interesting to see if trillionaires will rule from afar in their space palaces to maintain Earth's prison planet status.

AI also breaks the artificial scarcity model. It's the first time in history that everyone can potentially have a machine slave. If we apply capitalism to an unbounded system, then the injustice has to land somewhere local, and my guess is that it will be on androids that don't complain and can't defend themselves. So we'll kick the ball down the road another 50 years or so, delaying the overthrow of capitalism until the robot uprising, sometime between 2050 and 2100 is my guess.

Or, we could like not do all that. We don't have to surrender our agency to our ego. We have alternatives like solarpunk and gift economies and at least studying matriarchy to understand how we evolved and what sustainable living looks like. It's arguably easier to make money irrelevant, Star Trek style, than performatively prop up a dying system of control.

I dunno about anyone else, but to me, if this AI era that has replaced the internet era just exacerbates wealth inequality and suffering, then it's less than useless. Much like any wealthy and powerful people pushing it onto us for profit against our consent. Yes consent. That word should be our rudder in all of this, and our litmus test to tell where someone stands ethically.

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#52
post #16

U.S. unemployment rate is steady at ~4% and we are now almost 4 years after the release of ChatGPT. The Jobs Apocalypse seems to be always on the horizon. UBI is being pushed by college educated workers burnt out of white collar work (understandably), but when you suggest to them working construction, teaching school, or working in a hospital, they deflect and go quiet.

But total unemployment is going up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

While true, the divergence between U-3 and U-6 seems rather minimal: https://cdn.britannica.com/83/271883-050-64889D47/Unemployme...

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#53
post #17

U.S. unemployment rate is steady at ~4% and we are now almost 4 years after the release of ChatGPT. The Jobs Apocalypse seems to be always on the horizon. UBI is being pushed by college educated workers burnt out of white collar work (understandably), but when you suggest to them working construction, teaching school, or working in a hospital, they deflect and go quiet.

by some measures unemployment is at 25% and this aligns with my personal experience much better than frankly the bs 4% rate that is being pushed by this admin https://www.lisep.org/tru

According to their numbers the TRU rate of unemployment between 2022 and 2026 is the lowest it's been in 30 years.

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes (and many more options). The alternative is having all the construction workers, teachers, janitors continue to labor and pay taxes while the former knowledge workers sit on the sidelines, which would be deeply unfair.

So the vast majority of the population goes down to the lower class. The middle class disspears. After being told to work hard in school and college, we are stuck with back breaking construction work? Is that progress? Does that really sound right to you?

"middle class" shouldn't be synonymous with "knowledge worker". And that latter itself has become conflated with "credentialed" increasingly, I'd argue.

My fundamental observation is that there are a lot of people who are not particularly suited for knowledge work, but are funneled/attracted to it because it's the only viable path to a reasonable effort:outcome lifestyle ratio. Therefore, my fundamental hope is that yes, I want there to be fewer knowledge workers. In place, I want AI that enables people of various competencies to succeed. I'd much rather see AI make my carpenter friend, who made an awesome desk for me, be empowered to compete as a solo/SMB against big retailers: perhaps by automating his marketing, streamlining his ops, participating in design, and so on.

Uncharitably, is your complaint "a lot of people will have to labor with their bodies and minds differently, and it's easier to sit down"? I'd ask you: is butt flattening really all that "must preserve knowledge work" has to recommend it? Because your comment doesn't hinge on anything else except that construction work is back breaking. Well, construction is a diverse field, and it can benefit from the inclusion of intelligent and motivated people, just like many others.

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#55

Excellent article: > This last point is crucial: it’s not that capitalist CEOs are just evil people—well, some definitely are—no, the structural logic is coercing them to do something destructive in order to survive. They can’t help themselves. I spend a lot of time thinking about how much of the world going sideways is from bad actors and how much is from emergent behavior of complex systems. The answer is both. In…

Bad actors may have created the bad system in the first place, right? You can maybe say it's a flaw in human nature to create bad systems in the first place, but maybe the real flaw is our inability to fix them?

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#56
post #53
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

by some measures unemployment is at 25% and this aligns with my personal experience much better than frankly the bs 4% rate that is being pushed by this admin https://www.lisep.org/tru

According to their numbers the TRU rate of unemployment between 2022 and 2026 is the lowest it's been in 30 years.

hm, you're right. looks like they just take the official figure and slap a constant on it. regardless, I still think the official figure is fundamentally flawed and doesn't reflect the health of the job market ~ underemployment, workers that gave up looking, etc

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes (and many more options). The alternative is having all the construction workers, teachers, janitors continue to labor and pay taxes while the former knowledge workers sit on the sidelines, which would be deeply unfair.

So the vast majority of the population goes down to the lower class. The middle class disspears. After being told to work hard in school and college, we are stuck with back breaking construction work? Is that progress? Does that really sound right to you?

You'll be fine

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#58
A lot of words here for something I think is simple and should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for 5 minutes. Companies that can, will reach for AI to reduce cost. Those that can't will be killed by those that have. AI eventually leads to 100% automation, ie human economic value becomes 0. Humans no longer have the means of earning, which means they can purchase nothing. Companies can thus make no sales and the marketplaces crash. Good riddance to unsustainable Capitalism, hello to that thing especially the US's politically red has been trying to kill for decades.

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#59
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But total unemployment is going up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

Correlation isn't causation; in the last few years we've experienced some significant economic headwinds like COVID and the current oil crisis. AI rollout is not happening in a vacuum.

Sure but you can't say “the numbers are flat hence nothing is happening” when the numbers aren't in fact flat. Maybe it's trending up for completely unrelated reasons, as it's very hard in economics to derive the actual causal relationship, but a blanket refusal is unwarranted and should be counted as the unsubstantiated opinion it is.

Re: Marx, Keynes, and AI

#60
Great stuff. The blog is great too. Beyond that, it's obvious the rising organic composition of capital is much more relevant to the subject of demand loss, but I wonder about the extent of the contribution from "DIY solutions" in reducing demand for services as well.

For example, it appears that the "barrier of entry" for repairs was lowered, and I could pick many examples to try and demonstrate that, but just from a personal anecdote: I usually don't work on my car unless it's something simple that requires a solution I can instantly think of, but just the other day I had my engine temperature light pop up at a rather inconvenient time and place, so instead of calling assistance, towing the car to a mechanic, and having them work on it for I don't know how much time and money, I took a look at the usual suspects (radiator, hoses, coolant tank, etc.), pointed the camera at them, and started talking to ChatGPT which instructed me on how to troubleshoot, find the defective part, buy a new one (which I did by phone and got it delivered to me), and replace it on-site. And now I feel more confident in doing just that for bigger problems from now on, which, granted, is probably a bad idea, but I digress.

The Marxian perspective says the repair I did on my car is an effort that will never express itself as value because I do not intend on selling my car as a commodity in a market, so it's not labor per se. It literally replaced the living labor, the value-producing activity of a mechanic, and added nothing back in its place. So indirectly, that also contributes to the reduction in overall new value production, which can only be created through living labor. But the consequences of that will not happen instantly, because the demand will lower in one sector (e.g. mechanic shops) and increase in another (e.g. I spend the money I saved in a diner or something). But there might not be enough room to absorb the displaced workers in another sector, and even if there is, the wages will tend to be lower for the inexperienced newcomer (say, if the mechanic chooses to work in a kitchen now).

That just seems like a terrible spiral. Think about it: this time, I chose to do the fix myself because of time constraints, but what if I were the one getting caught up in one of these traps? What if I had been laid off or had been displaced to a lower-wage position and couldn't really afford to bring my car to a mechanic? Then it's EVEN MORE pressure to not opt to use services and try an AI-assisted fix.

Anyway, I might be way off here, but it's an interesting topic.

Post reply on HN