"We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter..." -- Sam Altman
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/2032012809433723158
There you go, there it is. Yup.
"We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter..." -- Sam Altman
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/2032012809433723158
There you go, there it is. Yup.
I'm not claiming that they're right, that you are actually buying "intelligence" from them by the meter, I think that's misleading.
But also, the fact that that's the *framing* goes to show to you that they absolutely, completely want it to be, and want to sell intellectual slavery, as far as they can get it.
@elexia @cwebber Yeah, that's fair. I'm somewhere on that spectrum, but I haven't read enough of either's literature to have a clear idea of where I fall. I'm not a humanist, which seems to make many anarchist positions difficult, but I also recognize that the State is fundamentally a protection racket.
If I say any more, I'm definitely going to say something stupid (if I haven't already!). Better for me to listen, I think.
@lykso
If you have not read it until now: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
An anarcho-communist classic!
@lykso I don't think you have to be a humanist to be an anarchist. I consider myself an anarchist whose allegiance is primarily to the land (meaning, the biosphere, and the specific area I live in), and who feels primarily accountable to the land. I guess you can consider me biophilic.
I live on Hawai'i island, and the local term for it is "aloha 'aina".
@aspensmonster @lykso @cwebber i'm just anti-libertarian
All the "tech bros" Fedi complains about are libertarian.
@janantos @lykso Marx explained how capitalists exploit workers. Marx thought that once the entire world realized how bad capitalism is for workers, the world will be ready for socialism. But socialism must come after the revolution. Before socialism, first all workers of all countries must unite, as Marx famously said.
Lenin who was a big fan of Marx said, frustratedly, that he had a couple of conversations with workers, but nobody wanted to believe what Marx said. Lenin thought that people were too stupid and too indoctrinated to realize how they are exploited. The workers had no class consciousness. So Lenin introduced the authoritarianism to Marx's ideas. The stupid workers didn't understand Marx, but he and his intellectual friends understand Marx, so he decided that he and his group of intellectuals should be in power and make all the decisions for all the stupid workers who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for themselves because they didn't even read Marx or didn't understand him if they did.
Stalin who was a big fan of Lenin said, after Lenin had died, the authoritarianism sounds great! But rather than a group of intellectuals (the party), it should be him and him alone in power. So Stalin turned Lenin's already authoritarian ideology into a full-blown dictatorship. And Stalin also broke with both Marx's and Lenin's idea that the workers should first *want* socialism (revolution) before they get socialism. Stalin said let's give them socialism even though there was no revolution yet. So Stalin took everything away from the poor Russian farmers and had those who resisted killed.
Also, Marx (a German) had always said that the revolution must begin in rich, advanced, already industrialized countries. Lenin (a Russian) said fuck that, who says the revolution can't start in piss-poor Russia that is centuries behind and is not at all industrialized?
I can understand that as an Eastern European you are traumatized by Stalinism and rightly say it was evil. But Stalin went against everything that Marx had taught.
If you hate on communism, please get the facts straight. Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism are three distinct ideologies. Even though people throw them all in the same pot and label all three as #communism.
@janantos @lykso You experienced Stalinism or forms of government inspired by it. Again, I agree that those were horrible, but I'm talking about Marxism and that is different from what traumatized you.
About centralized production and development destroying all innovation:
In all countries there are thousands of bakeries. The "production" of bread is decentralized. In the West we never had to stand in line (for more than 5 minutes) when buying bread, which was not the experience in the Soviet Union, right? In the West (and all countries since 1989), different bakeries could even charge different prices for their bread because they operate independently from each other, whereas in the East, the centre that made all the decisions even determined the price of bread, for all bakeries in the country. Right? That's how people in Eastern Germany (DDR) ended up having to wait years for a Trabant car.
Now look at Apple's iPhone. There is one single factory in the world, producing all iPhones in existence. (Edit, since you miss my point: Even if there are two or three factories in the entire world, it's not that every town in every country has its own iPhone factory like it has its own bakery.) All iPhones are shipped to world-wide customers from that one centrally producing and developing factory. The iPhone is designed in California, one central location in the world. There aren't iPhone factories all over the world, decentralized. No, it's just one factory at the center. And yet the iPhone was a huge innovation. Capitalism (the West) does central production all the time and it doesn't kill all innovation and progress. So, central production doesn't have to suck.
@davidculley @janantos To be clear, I don't think centralization of production is generally a good thing, whether driven by political or market pressures. I gather that I am more Luxemburgian than Leninist.
These critiques of the USSR are not new to me and they miss the mark for me because they rely on the Bolshevik appropriation of the word "communist" and its subsequent erasure and suppression of all other tendencies aside from its own.
@cwebber The closest they've ever come to a consistent definition of intelligence is something that can do economically valuable work.
Under that definition, what he's proposing is that you would rent the ability to do work, at all, from him. And that is in keeping with the ai/vc set's stated goals and past actions.
Yeah, I think I'm in pretty strong agreement with this.
That what's being 'sold' is 'work' not 'intelligence'. It's not _thinking_ about a problem it's _iterating_ until it's RNG kicks out a good-enough solution. An endless parade of, "How 'bout this one, boss? 😃"
Intelligence isn't manifested in 'work'.
The choice of the word 'intelligence' is a deliberate mislabeling of what they would _like_ to be selling.
@jenniferplusplus @cwebber yes! This is a thing I keep coming back to in how I feel about what's going on. The effort here is to build the ultimate "rent a shovel" service where the entire economy is dependent on an oligopoly of cloud providers to functionally do work.
I can live with a lot of things I don't like, but that's basically anathema to me.
@jenniferplusplus I think there's a word for that 🤔 sl.. sla.. um slavery!
Gotit?
@cwebber They are all wet.
AI is a death cult.
@cwebber
On the other hand it seems stupid, who ever heard of a water company worth trillions? I doubt what Altman really has in mind is becoming wholly owned by a alliance of municipalities.
I think you are right that they imagine themselves as plantation owners, but then their poor understanding of the real world makes them substitute in something else to be more palatable.
don't say that too loud or some techbro will try to invent artificial water...
@paul_ipv6 @cwebber to late i already made it, it's H₂O·O₂·(H₂O)⁻¹
And my company "total not fake" derived it from:
H₂O₁₊ₓO₂⁺
(Me hoping the people get the joke)
@cwebber what I'm getting is intelligence is water.
Hang on a sec.
they'd have no moral problem hoarding all the oxygen.
@cwebber non-X-hosted copy of the video