Something I’ve been thinking about a lot in the current battle over the future of (pseudo) AI is the cotton gin.

I live in a country where industrial progress is always considered a positive. It’s such a fundamental concept to the American exceptionalism claim that we are taught never to question it, let alone realize that it’s propaganda.

One such myth, taught early in grade school, is the story of Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Here was a classic example of a labor-saving device that made millions of lives better. No more overworked people hand cleaning the cotton (slaves, though that was only mentioned much later, if at all). Better clothes and bedding for the world. Capitalism at its best.

But that’s only half the story of this great industrial time saver. Where did those cotton cleaners go? And what was the impact of speeding up the process?

Now that the cleaning bottleneck was gone, the focus was on picking cotton as fast as possible. Those cotton cleaners likely, and millions of other slaves definitely, were sent to the fields to pick cotton. There was an unprecedented explosion in the slave trade. Industrial time management and optimization methods were applied to human beings using elaborate rule-based systems written up in books. How hard to punish to get optimal productivity. How long their lifespans needed to be to get the lost production per dollar. Those techniques, practiced on the backs and lives of slaves, became the basis of how to run the industrial mills in the North. They are the ancestors of the techniques that your manager uses now to improve productivity.

Millions of people were sold into slavery and worked to death *because* of the cotton gin. The advance it provided did not, in fact save labor overall. Nor did it make life better overall. It made a very small set of people much much richer; especially the investors around the world who funded the banks who funded the slave purchases. It made a larger set of consumers more comfortable at the cost of the lives of those poorer. Over a hundred years later this model is still the basis for our society.

Modern “AI” is a cotton gin. It makes a lot of painstaking things much easier and available to everyone. Writing, reading, drawing, summarizing, reviewing medical cases, hiring, firing, tracking productivity, driving, identifying people in a lineup…they all can now be done automatically. Put aside whether it’s actually capable of doing any of those things *well*; the investors don’t care if their products are good, they only care if they can make more money off of them. So long as they work enough to sell, the errors, and the human cost of those errors, are irrelevant. And like the cotton gin, AI has other side effects. When those jobs are gone, are the new jobs better? Or are we all working that much harder, with even more negative consequences to our life if we fall off the treadmill? One more fear to keep us “productive”.

The Luddites learned this lesson the hard way, and history demonizes them for it; because history isn’t written by the losers.

They’ve wrapped “AI” with a shiny ribbon to make it fun and appealing to the masses. How could something so fun to play with be dangerous? But like the story we are told about the cotton gin, the true costs are hidden.

#ML #TESCREAL

@nazgul nice comparison! Unfortunately words like 'Capitalism' and 'They' don't help they just point into a void. I see it like Capitalism -> humans without moral grounding -> sociopaths. Sorry I wish I could find a better term than sociopath. https://chat.openai.com/c/e2bc166a-a6fb-4ef5-bc16-42b1a5c2a812

@glotcha @nazgul I mean, it's a perfectly good word for people who are completely indifferent to the suffering of other people.

I just don't think all capitalists are sociopaths. A lot of them are deluded people who desperately need to believe that this society can lead to a just and equitable society without a revolution, simply so they won't despair, and a lot of this category are desperately poor people.

@TomSwirly @glotcha There have been studies though showing that CEOs tend to be heavy on the percentage of sociopaths. And I pretty firmly believe that you can’t get to the billionaire class without seriously hardening your empathy, at the very least.

@nazgul @glotcha I have known three billionaires on a first name basis (Larry, Sergei and Eric). They seemed nice enough, but I was not at odds with them.

If you told me they were sociopaths I might have difficulty refuting it. To have all that money and power and not to try to fix things.

My mental scenarios for avoiding the climate catastrophe tend to involve one billionaire going rogue and assassinating the others to save the planet. I would certainly pay good money to see that movie.

@TomSwirly @glotcha My personal contacts max out in the high 7 figures. But they’re all nice (and so are many sociopaths—niceness can be a valuable skill to learn). But to be in that position, they have to be able to make decisions that are going to harm people. And over time, that twists you. Do you save the stock by laying off 10,000 people? Or do you risk riding it out? What if you need that valuation to do something big that you think is important to the company? Maybe even the world? Sure, someone else might do it if you don’t, but maybe you don’t think they’d do it as well.

Somewhere in there you start turning human impact into nameless numbers. And you start believing that you’re the only one who can do things the right way. And it doesn’t help that when you’re that rich (especially if you’re well known), you have to isolate yourself socially. You don’t go anywhere without guards. That doesn’t help you stay grounded. The richest person I know personally has managed to keep their wealth out of the public eye. But their number one fear when traveling is still kidnapping.

That’s why I don’t buy into the “they’re just evil” thing. Sure, some may be, but that scale of power corrupts anyone who starts down the slippery slope. I don’t think I’d be able to avoid it either.

@nazgul @TomSwirly maybe thinking in terms of sociopathic behaviour would help. What bothers me mostly are that people are rewarded only on hitting earnings estimates without considering the environment. There are leaders out there that see beyond this, Apple 2030 looks like a good example. It bothers me to a lesser extent that our society sees billionaires as heroes, I view them mainly as (hoarding) losers. Thanks for your thoughts!

@glotcha @TomSwirly
@cstross wrote once of a future where all corporations had to prove that they were providing a value to society. I always liked that idea, although modern times have shown that defining “value to society” would be a nasty battle.

B Corps are an attempt to do that. I don’t know how well it works. https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/certification/

Politically, the US seems to have completely lost sight of the fact that a corporation was intended to provide protections to owners/investors IN EXCHANGE for licensing and limitations place by the government. It’s a transaction, not a right.

B Corp Certification demonstrates a company's entire social and environmental impact.

Information about how to become a B Corp and the process of B Corp Certification.