alixkun🟣🎩🍡 on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp

alixkun🟣🎩🍡

For those who know me, you might be surprised I'm a leftist in disguise :)) I wrote this short piece about AI excitement and how it might accelerate a movement towards communism 🙃 https://x.com/aIixkun/status/1877714981187355087

2 replies

15 recasts

29 reactions

Chainleft pfp

Communism is not about distribution of basic needs. It's about workers (or now "people" in post-AI world) owning the MEANS of production. In a world where all production is made by AI, "means" = "power to make decisions, power to allocate resources". So if AI gives us food, shelter, everything we need at a fundamental level, we still won't be in communism if the decisions are made only by those who control these models.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp

alixkun🟣🎩🍡

Hmm, let's call it communism 2.0 then, with ppl being in control of AIs. Because I don't see AI doing all of that for free. I don't see a universe where: 1/We're still in a capitalistic societies 2/AIs do everything for us free of charge 3/We don't need to work for a living Like, this parallel universe doesn't exist for me, just because a society where "the fews who control make the decision" also means these fews control the value, and in a capitalistic society, this value wouldnt be redistributed properly, so it would lead to the uprising I'm mentioning in my post.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Chainleft pfp

I'd love to be optimistic. I think the misunderstanding here is the difference between the value and means. The few can control the means while distributing value (needs like basic healthcare, shelter, food) sufficiently. That is pretty much what we have but at a bigger scale.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp

alixkun🟣🎩🍡

In theory you're right, but in practice it's not happening: There's already enough "value" on earth to satisfy everybody's needs, but it's not happening. And I dont see it happening more just because of AI. It'll just be another opportunity for owners to extract more value, increasing frustration over time, and the odds of an uprise.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Chainleft pfp

Do you mean that inability to participate in decisions will lead to people to uprise, even if their core needs are met?

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp

alixkun🟣🎩🍡

I think there are several aspects to that question. First, I dont believe we'll reach this situation. Not happening today, won't be happening tomorrow. But second, let's assume that AI would allow that situation to happen. I think people intrinsically don't think in terms of basic needs met/not met, but compare themselves, and feel frustration if they think things are not right. If you look at yellow vest in France people for ex., these are people that could still have their basic needs met. They were workers, had a roof, a car, food on the table. It's just that they felt more and more squeezed, felt frustration that they couldnt buy a gift to their children on christmas, or go on vacation during summer, like everybody else (or so they think). I think there's a certain level of satisfaction that would be an acceptable trade off to not participate in decisions, but this level is way beyond basic needs being made or not, and I don't see this global satisfaction level being reached under a capitalistic regime.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Chainleft pfp

I absolutely agree that a strong satisfaction can't be met with capitalism, with or without AI. You also gave here something to think about: Does that base satisfaction increase when more of our basic needs met thanks to AI, do we give away more decision power in that tradeoff as a result? I don't know. People would have "more to lose". On the other hand, there'd be a democratized access to AI, a democratized access to intellectual and maybe even physical power, which means more resources to fight back. The only part I disagree is the ruling class not taking the power away from the people due to a potential uprising. It IS happening today, they're chipping away rights one by one. I remember how strongly people fought back for net neutrality in 2011 - now it's quietly gone and no one even thought about it. Same with surveillance, protest rights, and even the partial democracy taken away through media & lobbies. I suspect that'll increase. The question is whether people will fight back. I hope they do.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

alixkun🟣🎩🍡 pfp

alixkun🟣🎩🍡

I wanna address 2 points: "Does that base satisfaction increase when more of our basic needs met thanks to AI, do we give away more decision power in that tradeoff as a result? I don't know." To me that's more or less what has happened in the past 50 years in China. Incredibly fast and powerful growth, lifting millions out of sheer poverty to build up a middle class, at the cost of democracy. I suspect ppl did a unconscious trade-off that they're questioning, now that growth has slowed down and challenges are arising. Also the following part: "The ruling part not taking the power away from the people due to a potential uprising." That is indeed the fictional scenario where nobody knows at this point. My thesis is that Capitalism fundamentally optimize for value creation and accumulation, but not for distribution. With AI replacing more & more ppl, I dont think the system will be able keep bending to support the weight of all the popular frustration creatred and keep going on business as usual. It'll break.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Chainleft pfp

[FWIW I like this discussion a lot] Yes, capitalism focuses on value creation and not distribution. Even if we believe that part, I'm still curious about people's threshold for dissent under the new conditions within AI. I hope you're right. The elite's recent brazenness in their actions over the past 2 years (not just international conflicts but even internal ones) reduced my hope a bit. At the very least, we can safely say that the elite doesn't believe the people will do anything about it. That's why they've been pushing. Let's hope people prove them wrong.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction