On AI, capitalism, and existential threats

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Very taken by this idea of describing the normal operations of capitalism as they happen today but pretending that there's an AI involved so as to get nerds to actually engage with anti-capitalism.

Shhhhh, it a secret.


Edit: But yeah, the operations of an AI and the operations of institutions are incredibly similar, because while individuals within those institutions have a sense of morality, the organisation as a whole does not, and the more people are involved with an institution, the less it will exhibit signs of morality. An AI is just much faster about it, but the same criticism of an unthinking, amoral decision-maker like an AI are applicable to the overall capitalist system.

[Labbos]

The fact that those solar panels and wind turbines happen to be constructed under capitalism does not mean they are capitalistic inventions. On the contrary, they were made with huge government investment. Solar panels were built by NASA, for instance. In fact, under capitalism, we are not producing enough wind turbines and solar panels by far to really make an impact on carbon emissions.

So if the government of a capitalist nation spends money to get companies to create something, you don't think that's capitalism? What do you think capitalism is? Because that sounds like capitalism to me.

And non-capitalist nations aren't churning out great numbers of wind turbines or solar panels either. After all, China is by far the biggest user of non-renewable energy. In 2020, it started building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined managed to retire. It seems that humans are making worse environmental decisions under centralised systems.

What is the fundamental difference between an AI and a board of investors? While there are certainly humans on a board of investors, the decision that board makes only take into account profit. Profit, and PR, because PR is important for profit. A board of investors does not have humanitarian motives; what would be the difference between them and an AI? Other than that an AI can make a thousand decisions in the time it takes the board to say 'lunch?'

The board takes into account far more things than profit. For example, they're unlikely to make decisions that will lead to them being imprisoned, and so we get the role of government in overseeing companies. Also, something that would destroy the planet tomorrow but generate huge profits would be tempting to the AI, but not the human board. And the board members are human; they're not sitting there making decisions without a moral compass. An AI is, unless it has one hard-wired in.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The fact that those solar panels and wind turbines happen to be constructed under capitalism does not mean they are capitalistic inventions. On the contrary, they were made with huge government investment. Solar panels were built by NASA, for instance. In fact, under capitalism, we are not producing enough wind turbines and solar panels by far to really make an impact on carbon emissions.

So if the government of a capitalist nation spends money to get companies to create something, you don't think that's capitalism? What do you think capitalism is? Because that sounds like capitalism to me.

And non-capitalist nations aren't churning out great numbers of wind turbines or solar panels either. After all, China is by far the biggest user of non-renewable energy. In 2020, it started building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined managed to retire. It seems the human are making worse environmental decisions under centralised systems.

What is the fundamental difference between an AI and a board of investors? While there are certainly humans on a board of investors, the decision that board makes only take into account profit. Profit, and PR, because PR is important for profit. A board of investors does not have humanitarian motives; what would be the difference between them and an AI? Other than that an AI can make a thousand decisions in the time it takes the board to say 'lunch?'

The board takes into account far more things than profit. For example, they're unlikely to make decisions that will lead to them being imprisoned, and so we get the role of government in overseeing companies. Also, something that would destroy the planet tomorrow but generate huge profits would be tempting to the AI, but not the human board. And the board members are human; they're not sitting there making decisions without a moral compass. An AI is, unless it has one hard-wired in.

Capitalism is not the same as money, of course. Capitalism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by the investors. NASA, a government-run agency with the purpose of exploring outer space at a loss, is not a capitalistic endeavor. Even though, yes, they use money.

Getting imprisoned is really bad for profits, though, and crimes are very bad for PR.

Climate change proves, without a doubt, that modern investors are totally fine with destroying the planet if they can make a quick buck off it, as long as they are not the one literally clubbing all the baby seals to death. They are definitely not making decisions based on any moral compass I recognise; they only pretend to for PR reasons. Or do you think it was a moral compass that led Shell to, say, build a leaky pipeline through Nigeria?

[Labbos]

So if the government of a capitalist nation spends money to get companies to create something, you don't think that's capitalism? What do you think capitalism is? Because that sounds like capitalism to me.

And non-capitalist nations aren't churning out great numbers of wind turbines or solar panels either. After all, China is by far the biggest user of non-renewable energy. In 2020, it started building more coal plants than the rest of the world combined managed to retire. It seems the human are making worse environmental decisions under centralised systems.



The board takes into account far more things than profit. For example, they're unlikely to make decisions that will lead to them being imprisoned, and so we get the role of government in overseeing companies. Also, something that would destroy the planet tomorrow but generate huge profits would be tempting to the AI, but not the human board. And the board members are human; they're not sitting there making decisions without a moral compass. An AI is, unless it has one hard-wired in.

Capitalism is not the same as money, of course. Capitalism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by the investors. NASA, a government-run agency with the purpose of exploring outer space at a loss, is not a capitalistic endeavor. Even though, yes, they use money.

Getting imprisoned is really bad for profits, though, and crimes are very bad for PR.

Climate change proves, without a doubt, that modern investors are totally fine with destroying the planet if they can make a quick buck off it, as long as they are not the one literally clubbing all the baby seals to death. They are definitely not making decisions based on any moral compass I recognise; they only pretend to for PR reasons. Or do you think it was a moral compass that led Shell to, say, build a leaky pipeline through Nigeria?

Solar panels weren't invented by NASA. In fact, solar panels are over twice as old as NASA. And it's common for the governments of capitalist societies to invest for the future, whether that's building a road or a spacecraft. The government doesn't expect to directly profit from doing so, but it does so on behalf of its society. And it doesn't even build such things itself. The roads, spacecraft and solar panels that government pays for are usually created by private companies. That's capitalism.

Climate change is to some extent an example of the Tragedy of the Commons. People, companies and even most governments have almost no effect on it themselves, just in aggregate. Investors don't want the planet destroyed. And it's not just capitalist enterprises that have that way of thinking. Chernobyl is an example of the same bad decision making from large groups under a non-capitalist system. What data makes you think that capitalism is measurably worse on these issues?

[The New California Republic]

Climate change is to some extent an example of the Tragedy of the Commons. People, companies and even most governments have almost no effect on it themselves, just in aggregate. Investors don't want the planet destroyed. And it's not just capitalist enterprises that have that way of thinking. Chernobyl is an example of the same bad decision making from large groups under a non-capitalist system. What data makes you think that capitalism is measurably worse on these issues?

...I mean, on paper you are right, but in actuality you are wrong, as most Soviet enterprises operated on an aim-for-profit basis through Khozraschyot, or in instances where that was not possible, such as where the enterprise was necessary for the functioning of other parts of the economy for instance, then minimising losses relative to benefit was aimed for.