☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

  • 4.27K Posts
  • 3.9K Comments
Joined 6 years ago
Cake day: January 18th, 2020
  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPMtoUnited States | News & Politics@lemmy.ml•MIT study finds AI can already replace 11.7% of U.S. workforce
    7·
    3 days ago

    Look at it this way, AI is simply exposing the deep absurdity of late capitalism. Much of the economy in the West consists of what Graeber called bullshit jobs which are roles that even people performing them struggle to justify. I’d argue these types of jobs are uniquely vulnerable to replacement by AI.

    It’s because these jobs produce nothing of tangible, material value. Building a bridge or diagnosing an illness requires engagement with physical and ethical reality. You are accountable to laws of physics, to human bodies, to measurable outcomes. That sort of a job is going to require a human in the loop. An AI tool can be helpful for the worker where it could help zero down on a diagnosis for example, but the final decision needs to be made by a person who can be held responsible. There is little chance that AI, in the form we have today, can replace such jobs.

    But much of the modern service and knowledge economy operates in a realm of manufactured meaning. Marketing campaigns, branding, corporate compliance, and middle management layers are roles built around persuasion, perception, and bureaucratic performance. They generate what Baudrillard would call simulacra. These are outputs detached from real use-value. AI, as a sophisticated pattern matcher, thrives here precisely because the work was already semantically hollow.

    So while capitalism created these roles to absorb surplus labor and sustain consumption, AI now reveals their contingency. The real contradiction here is between value and bullshit. It is between work that sustains society and work that just sustains the system.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•Why do some people try to humanize the wealthy and people in positions of power?
    11·
    8 days ago

    We cannot understand class behavior by examining individual morality. Viewing the capital owning class as a collection of mustache twirling villains is not a useful framing. Rather, we should look at them as the human personification of capital itself. Their social being, their entire material condition, is defined by the accumulation of private profit and the protection of property relations that enforce their dominance.

    Their inability to relate is not a personal failing but a direct result of their objective position in the capitalist mode of production. They live in a world insulated from the precarity of rent, medical debt, and wage slavery that defines life for the working majority. Their consciousness is shaped by them being insulated from the problems regular people experience. Therefore, critique of their lack of empathy is a liberal dead end because it mistakes a systemic outcome for a personal choice.

    The focus must be the capitalist system itself, which necessarily produces the inequality and the divide between the capitalists and the workers. The fundamental contradiction between the socialized nature of production and the private appropriation of wealth is the core issue. The solution is to dismantle the economic base that creates them as a class and move towards a system where the means of production are socially owned, abolishing the very material conditions that breed alienation and disparity.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPMtoUnited States | News & Politics@lemmy.ml•‘We are not Enron’: Nvidia rejects AI bubble fears 🤣
    6·
    12 days ago

    Also, the part about chips burning out faster than expected will become a real problem in a few years. You need rare earths to produce chips, and China has an effective monopoly on refining them. China will obviously prioritize its own domestic use. As Chinese companies continue to ramp up production of chips, solar panels, EVs, and so on, there will be less and less available for export. Even if the government wanted to help the US for some reason, it would be politically impossible for them to say they will starve their own industries to supply the US.

    Meanwhile, even under the most aggressive diversification scenarios, China is projected to maintain around 80% of global refining capacity all the way through 2040s. So once the current supply of chips burns out, it is not clear how new ones will be made outside of China.

Moderates