Fuuundamentality Of Technology

Brett Scott the “war on cash” guy, posted an essay on the dangers of AI hype and grift, which that part I concur with.

But some of his macroeconomics framing is off imho.

But let’s critically examne some of Brett’s points, for they are not all entireoly accurate, or at least not how would frame things in the software industry.

Point 1.

“Maybe you think you’re helping us all to get to the next level in the great game of human history.
      “In this, I am happy for you. Everyone has gifts which are meaningful to them, and which they use to form their identity and to express their creativity. You, as a tool-builder, are working with your gifts, and nobody can blame you for that.       ““But, I just want you to be aware that — in the context of our current world — your gifts will be weaponised, and you have a moral responsibility to not be naive about your own position in that great game of human history.”

Firstly, life is not a game. The well-to-do can afford to say it is so.

Second, I am not happy for people thinking like techno-libertarians. Most of them are delusional. Most software is junk, most apps will be obsolete soon, and what remains and endures are the few critical algorithms that are common in all moderately complicated software. None of these Code Warriors are discovering new algorithm. They are all code jockies.

Third, the moral responsibility part is 100% good.

“… but in the end the fundamental purpose of AI is to serve the needs of capitalism in three ways:
      (1) Firstly, to give bosses and shareholders new automation technology that can be used to weaken the political power of their workforces by making labour increasingly redundant
      (2) Secondly, to give military generals new capabilities to fight over and secure territory for further commodification
      (3) Thirdly, to help numb out the broader population with streaming entertainment media, like AI-generated cat reels.

On (1) – no. There is no fundamental purpose to machine algorithms. The purpsoe of software is derived from the user, ultimately, thought the programmer probably has a typical user in mind.

Also, there is no such thing as “AI” it is a made-up word, much like “Intellectual Property”. But that’s a whole other essay for another day.

Embarrassingly, for me, Andrew Yang and other have most of the unemployment story correct: high tech automation does not cause unemployment. It causes a freedom for people to move out of dumb now bullshit jobs, formerly not bullshit, into big vacant holes in socially useful or necessary work.

The “new” jobs — really old socially necessary jobs that are just not being done — might be very shitty jobs still, like nursing and teaching in lower schools, sanitation work, plumbing, etc. Well… they’d be shitty to me, gladly not so shitty for all people. It takes all types to make a decent society.

What Yang and the techno-libertarians fail to appreciate is that the source of all unemployment is government.

The private sector role is to produce real output in a market, stuff we all desire, but may not necessarily need to live a decent life.

The role of the government is to hire all unemployed labour. This is by design.

By imposing coercive tax liabilities (and indirectly by fees, fines, levies and starving local government of the tax credits) the government is in the first place, from inception, deliberately generating unemployment.

Unemployment is \textit{defined} as people seeking to exchange their goods or labour for tax credits, but who are unable to do so.

On (2) — I have no objections to Brett’s point about tech getting used for military ventures. Except it rather explodes the self-proclaimed libertarianism of Silicon Valley. I thought genuine libertarians were anti-war and anti-the-M.I.C.? The Silver Rule, and all that. Turns out, the techno-libertarian is Libertarian in name only.

On (3) — probably. But I think the military-industrial-entertainment complex is a messy uncoordinated beast. It is mostly consumer choice at work, and no one forces you to watch LOL Cat videos or pop music slop. No one forces you to use a machine generated cartoon for your substack or youtube feature image.

Sure, the media-entertainment complex is full of rot, but it is not an area of social crud && cruft that we are powerless to do something about. It is easier to withhold your eyeballs from candy than withhold your labour for tax credits.

It is easier to stop using proprietary software than it is to stop drinking coffee.

Also, I think Brett are over-selling the AI/tech story. Most of it is technology we do not need to live a decent life. A ꕷꖾꔇꖡꗍ-tonne of software industry workers are white-knucklers who have no fun at the weekend down at Colorado or Burning Man etc., and who are miserable and resentful. Most of their code is broken and/or obsolete in a few years, and they’re not building any useful tools, for the most part.

Also, why appeal to the higher-up the food-chain tech nerds anyway? They’ve shown they do not care, how many times do you have to see them turn a blind eye to human suffering? With their ultradarwinist nonsense, blind to the fact the government and Its regulations enabled them all to succeed. The easier thing to do is stop using their software. No one needs Apple Inc or Micro$oft. So stop pretending you need them. The out-of-work programmers can always be employed to do better things, start community gardens, pour espresso for me, teach math to kindergartners, help old people retire in dignity, help prevent accounting fraud, … a million other good and useful things that will have lasting positive impact on society.