cryptoleft

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 🙃

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

/monad ecosystem growth | ex telco.in & everwave.xyz founder | /music moderator | writing on web3 & culture https://paragraph.xyz/@alixkun.eth

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.

https://chainleft.art

Dad, data scientist, blockchain native artist.

Power consolidation=evil.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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