Why is China willingly wasting it's time and resources with the AI thing rather than continuing to develop the productive forces while they're still ahead?
Is the idea that they can lead the west into going all-in on something fruitless with the knowledge that China can tank the damage, merely leading the AI race to get the west to hurdle faster at it? Like the AI race is a tunnel painted on a brick wall? Why would western tech companies knowingly charge into a brick wall like that? Like I know they're stupid but surely not that stupid.
not too sure if this is a /leftypol/ or /tech/ thing, sorry.
>>2563243Aren't they attempting to double their GDP? pretty sure they're developing the productive forces, anon, don't you worry.
>>/QTDDTOT/ btw. >>2563243There's a /PRC/ thread.
>>2548078 Also, they are advancing the productive forces as well as integrating the productive forces with embodied AI. Think robotics, advanced sensors, drones, self-driving cars, industrial automation and a Cambrian explosion of other AI-enabled hardware.
a robust computer industry means ready access and easy production of high-tech military equipment like missile guidance systems, drones, electronic warfare equipment, etc., and if nothing else, 'AI' investing will ensure that computers and hardware are supported industries.
additionally, it is possible that a relatively sane society like china can find genuine uses for LLM tech. imagine if american technology wasn't led by idiots like Musk and Altman, but instead by qualified people with at least some education in marxist and related theory.
for example, while i don't think 'AI' should necessarily replace all human operation of vehicles, it would be useful to control more complicated aspects of certain vehicles or other equipment. for a fun sci fi example, something like a small mech or larger powered armor would likely need some kind of automatic limb control for basic walking and movement, while a pilot (or a program if you are anthro-pessimistic) designates directions or waypoint coordinates. Your only other option is some kind of brain-machine interface for something like that. for a more realistic modern example, many fighter jets have computerized systems handle the finer details of the maneuvering of the plane, keeping it stable and reacting reliably to control inputs, while the human pilot applies guidance via the control stick and various buttons etc.
meanwhile americans just use new tech to generate low quality goon material and lobster jesus facebook memes to scam the elderly with.
behind all the "AI" hype nonsense there are actual useful products like better automatic translation and machine vision to help with tasks like
>>2563313>implying AI doesn’t compose a productive force
Idk what to tell you bro.
>>2563243AI literally is a tool/means of production you absolute cretin.
>>2563313WHO THE FUCK DREW THIS? THIS IS BULLSHIT, XPENG IS INTO EV AND THE LEADING COMPANY FOR HUMANOID AND INDUSTRIAL ROBOTS. KILL YOURSELF FUCKING LIAR. LOOK AT THE XPENG HUMANOID ROBOT ITS THE BEST ONE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY YOU FUCKING DECEIVING UYGHUR.
>>2563313FUCK YOU SCUMBAG
XPENG NUMBER #1
CHINA NUMBER #1
I HOPE YOU GET CANCER AND EBOLA LIAR
YOU AMERICAN TESLA FAGGOT YOU
>>2600909Aethetically S teir for making the robot have a bike helmet aethetic rather than trying to do the android thing like some of them do.
Like I know it's not the uncanny valley, which is a pseudoscientific statistical fallacy, that drives me to dislike the android thing. My guess is human faces are just inherently unnerving. Seeing a human mouth means you get plauge in nature. A masked/hidden/non-existant face is clean and safe. And a screen can do all the smiling and stuff that made faces semi-tolerable. Screen face robots are comforting to me.
>>2563243Because capital took over since Deng
China number one
China good America bad
I love the national bourgeoisie I love the state I love capital!
China must develop new AI tech to sell to Israel so they can bomb children more accurately
#justAESthings
>>2563357Kendrick Lamar is the most overrated whyliny bitch ass rapper of all time.
Some AI is useful.
They aren't using grok to make memes there, they use AI to make medicine and cars.
>>2601173The induction of rap into the zeitgeist was funded in part by the CIA to keep black people down in the public consciousness and to create factionalism in the proletariat
>>2600920Uncanny valley is just the simple fact the human brain has a massive amount of specialized facial recognition patterns and pathways. Simple faces are fine because it's not a bother to just look at two eyes and a lone and have the basic levels of "lock on targeting" with little more, adding enough elements starts to make your brain attempt to start reading a ton of other information that it perceives as either malformed or missing.
>>2601181They can use AI to pattern recognize what the subject is thinking when under fMRI brainscan. Its possible to literally read your thoughts or make picture/video of what youre thinking. And this has been done in multiple studies. Its designed for people completely unable to move so they can talk with relatives with thoughts that AI turns into text and/or speech.
>>2601237This sounds closer to those mind reading tests where they checked your blood pressure.
You can do both, retard.
>>2601162Infantile anarkiddie noices
Because:
The Essence of "Theory of Productive Forces" Is to Oppose Proletarian Revolution
Peking Review, vol. 12, no. 38, 1969 September 19, pp. 5-8
The renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi consistently advocated the reactionary "theory of productive forces." According to this fallacy, socialist revolution is impossible and the socialist road cannot be taken in any country where capitalism is not highly developed and the productive forces have not reached a high level. Before the seizure of political power by the proletariat, he advocated this theory to forbid the proletariat from rising to make revolution and seizing political power. After the seizure of power, he raised it to oppose socialist transformation in a futile effort to lead China on to the road of capitalism. When the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was completed in the main, he continued to advocate this theory in a clandestine attempt to restore capitalism.
Practice is the criterion for testing truth. The great victories of China's new-democratic revolution, socialist revolution and socialist construction won under the leadership of our great leader Chairman Mao have proclaimed the bankruptcy of the "theory of productive forces" peddled by Liu Shao-chi. Of course, the change in the relations of production is caused by the definite development of productive forces. But enormous development of productive forces always takes place in the wake of a change in the relations of production. Historical experience has proved that only by first creating revolutionary public opinion and seizing political power, and then changing the relations of production, is it possible to greatly develop the productive forces. This is the general law of social development.
Opposing Proletarian Seizure of Political Power
Old China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country in which the productive forces were at a very level and had long stagnated. This resulted mainly from cruel oppression and exploitation by imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism. When we have political power we have everything. The decadent and backward relations of production could be fundamentally changed and the productive forces greatly developed only when the masses were armed with Mao Tsetung Thought and when the proletariat (through the Communist Party) led the masses (mainly the peasant masses) in carrying out the revolution, i.e., the new-democratic revolution, against the three main enemies — imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism — to seize political power throughout the country and, following its victory, shifting over to the socialist revolution without letting up.
As far back as the early years of China's new-democratic revolution, however, Liu Shao-chi, following in Chen Tu-hsiu's footsteps, vigorously preached the "theory of productive forces" to oppose the proletariat making revolution and seizing political power. Using the pretext that China was industrially backward and the level of its productive forces was very low, he slanderously described the Chinese proletariat as "infantile" and "seriously lumpen," alleging that the seizure of power by the proletariat was "a thing of the distant future," and that it was utterly "unnecessary to waste much breath discussing it."
To deny the possibility and necessity of seizure of power by the proletariat on the pretext that the level of the productive forces is low is an outright fallacy advocated with an ulterior motive behind it. The question of whether the proletariat is able to seize political power is absolutely not determined by the level of the productive forces, but objectively by whether there is a revolutionary situation, and subjectively by whether there is a Communist Party armed with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, which correctly leads the broad revolutionary masses in a courageous struggle to seize political power. The contradiction between the three main enemies and the Chinese people was extremely acute in old China. The proletariat and the broad masses of peasants were subjected to oppression, the severity and cruelty of which were rare in other countries. They urgently wanted revolution. Though the proletariat was small in number, it had natural ties with the impoverished peasants in their hundreds of millions with whom it could form a close alliance. A revolutionary situation existed in China. Provided the Communist Party of China was armed with Mao Tsetung Thought, it certainly could lead the revolutionary masses in defeating the enemies, step by step, and finally seizing political power throughout the country. The great victory of the Chinese revolution has fully proved this point.
Liu Shao-chi's vicious intent in painstakingly advocating the "theory of productive forces" was that the proletariat had to endure oppression and exploitation by the three main enemies, but could not lift a finger against old
China's reactionary and decadent political-economic system.
While affirming that the productive forces and the economic base in general play the principal and decisive role in relation to production relations and the superstructure, our great leader Chairman Mao stresses: "When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role," and "when the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive." The "theory of productive forces" hawked by Liu Shao-chi one-sidedly describes the progress of society as the natural outcome of the development of the productive forces, chiefly the instruments of production. It completely denies that, under certain conditions, the superstructure and the relations of production play the principal and decisive role in relation to the economic base and the productive forces; it also denies that the proletariat's consciously making revolution under the guidance of revolutionary theory, seizing political power and changing the relations of production play the decisive role in greatly developing the productive forces and pushing social development ahead. It categorically denies that "the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history" and that "revolutions are the locomotives of history." It uses mechanical materialism to replace dialectical materialism, and vulgar evolutionism to oppose revolutionary dialectics. The "theory of productive forces" is an out-and-out counter-revolutionary fallacy.
Clearing the Way for Developing Capitalism
The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 marked the basic conclusion of the new-democratic revolution and the beginning of the socialist revolution. Firmly responding to Chairman Mao's call to "build China into a great socialist state," the working class and other labouring people were determined to go right into the socialist revolution without stopping. It was precisely at this historical juncture, however, that Liu Shao-chi frantically rushed forth to oppose the socialist road and loudly advocate the capitalist road. His "theoretical" basis remained the counter-revolutionary "theory of productive forces."
Liu Shao-chi repeatedly clamored: "The question of socialism is a matter for the future. It is too early to raise it now." He also babbled that "capitalism in China today is still in its youth and it is high time to give full play to its historical and positive role and let it make its contribution" and that "the capitalists should exist and develop for decades" without restriction. He insisted that failure to do so would "hinder the raising of productive forces" and was therefore "reactionary." His allegation that agricultural co-operation before mechanization was a "reactionary Utopian concept of agrarian socialism" was a slander. He beat the drum for the development of a rich-peasant economy, and made a big noise that even if a rich peasant hired "one hundred" farm labourers, he "should be protected from any infringement." This long-standing counter-revolutionary had become so cynical that he confused right and wrong and stood truth upside down.
The allegation that New China had to depend on capitalism to develop the productive forces was the outright yapping of bourgeois lap-dogs.
Though the Chinese national bourgeoisie was not the target of the democratic revolution, it was, in Marx's words, "dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt," and it had all along brutally exploited the proletariat. It was very weak politically and economically, and maintained connections with imperialism and feudalism by numerous ties. The Chinese national bourgeoisie, which came on the scene very late and "unpropitiously," grew senile very much before its time. At a time when the world had long entered "an era in which capitalism is unquestionably dying and socialism is unquestionably prospering," and when the proletariat had seized political power in New China, the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie became the principal contradiction at home. If the policy of utilization, restriction and transformation had not been carried out with regard to capitalist industry and commerce, and if capitalist industry and commerce had been allowed unlimited expansion as Liu Shao-chi had preached, the productive forces could not be greatly developed and, furthermore, the political power already seized by the proletariat would change colour.
The assertion that the building of socialism was "Utopian" and "reactionary" was exactly the language of renegades to the proletariat.
The great Lenin pointed out long ago that whether the bourgeois democratic revolution, following its victory, would change into the socialist revolution without let-up depended on "the degree of preparedness of the proletariat and the degree of its unity with the poor peasants." The seizure of political power by the working class following the founding of the People's Republic of China was the most important political preparedness; the confiscation of bureaucrat-capital, which "will enable the people's republic to control the economic lifelines of the country and will enable the state-owned economy to become the leading sector of the entire national economy," was the most important economic preparedness. The worker-peasant alliance in China became very powerful and consolidated after the protracted struggle in the democratic revolution. The working class and the poor and lower-middle peasants "have a potentially inexhaustible enthusiasm for socialism" because they suffered bitter exploitation in the old society. Right after the Land Reform, the poor and lower-middle peasants urgently wanted to get organized and take the road of agricultural co-operation. Only thus could a new polarization in the Chinese countryside be averted and the mechanization of agriculture be gradually achieved. Preliminary but successful experience had been gained in promoting mutual help and co-operation in the old Liberated Areas among individual peasants who were guided by Chairman Mao's great call "Get organized." Guided by Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line after the founding of New China, the Chinese Communist Party led the worker and peasant masses in carrying out the socialist transformation of the national economy through proper terms and measures. This represented the general trend and the aspirations of the people and it fully conformed with the objective law of development. Only by doing so could the enthusiasm of the workers and peasants in their hundreds of millions for revolution and production be brought into full play and the productive forces be developed enormously.
Liu Shao-chi's aim in so fanatically peddling the "theory of productive forces" was to urge the working class and all other laboring people to respectfully hand over the fruits of their victory in revolution to the bourgeoisie. If this scheme had succeeded, the workers and peasants in their hundreds of millions would have been once again thrown into the abyss of misery.
The great leader Chairman Mao pointed out long ago: It was "sheer fantasy" to establish in China a capitalist society under bourgeois dictatorship after the victory of the new-democratic revolution. Because of its extreme weakness, the Chinese national bourgeoisie had to capitulate to imperialism if it attempted to oppose socialism. To put it bluntly, Liu Shao-chi's reactionary program for developing capitalism was impossible for China, as Chairman Mao had taught us: "In fact this road is impossible, and in fact, therefore, they are ready to capitulate to imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism." The "theory of productive forces" preached by Liu Shao-chi not only showed that he was the chief representative of the bourgeoisie, but exposed his true features as the running dog of imperialism.
Smokescreen for Restoring Capitalism
Under the wise leadership of our great leader Chairman Mao, China had by 1956 basically completed the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means production and this greatly promoted the development of the productive forces. However, there is contradiction as well as harmony between the relations of production and the productive forces and between superstructure and the economic base. Class struggle is far from over and the question of political power remains the focus of the struggle. Chairman Mao teaches: "Socialist society covers a considerably long historical period. In the historical period of socialism, there are still classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, and there is the danger of capitalist restoration." In these circumstances, "by itself the socialist revolution on the economic front (in the ownership of the means of production) is insufficient and cannot be consolidated. There must also be a thoroughgoing socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts." This is an epoch-making development of Marxism-Leninism, an important component part of Chairman Mao's great theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat and a beacon light guiding the proletariat and the revolutionary people to continue the revolution.
It was precisely at this crucial moment of whether the socialist revolution could be carried forward that Liu Shao-chi came out for the painstaking creation of counter-revolutionary public opinion. He clamored everywhere: "In our country, the question of which will win out, socialism or capitalism, has now been settled," "class struggle is over" and "now, the main task of the Chinese people and our Party is to develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible." All these fallacies were merely a new form of the "theory of productive forces."
According to his absurd theory, the relations of production were no longer in contradiction with the productive forces, and the socialist revolution on the economic front had ended; the superstructure was no longer in contradiction with the economic base, and socialist revolution on the political and ideological fronts was entirely unnecessary; classes were eliminated, the bourgeoisie no longer existed, class struggle was over, and it was quite enough for the working class and other laboring people simply to immerse themselves in production and professional work.
The great leader Chairman Mao incisively pointed out: "To overthrow a political power, it is always necessary first of all to create public opinion, to do work in the ideological sphere. This is true for the revolutionary class as well as for the counter-revolutionary class." Liu Shao-chi made a great show in crying out for developing the productive forces while actually trying to restore capitalism. The counter-revolutionary view that "production is everything" that he brought into being was a smokescreen. He wanted to use it to dull our revolutionary vigilance so that he could recruit turncoats, take in renegades and set up cliques for selfish interests, and push ahead wildly with his counter-revolutionary revisionist line on all fronts, make the dictatorship of the proletariat degenerate into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and transform the socialist economy into a capitalist economy. If we had been taken in by him, if we had forgotten the necessity of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, if we had not waged class struggle, made revolution in the realm of the superstructure, given prominence to proletarian politics, completely shattered the bourgeois headquarters headed by Liu Shao-chi and consolidated the leadership of the proletariat, and if we had become engrossed in production, "concerned ourselves solely with the production of grain, cotton and edible oil, and made no distinction between our enemies, our friends and ourselves," if we had gone in only for mechanization and not for revolutionization, then it would not have been long before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale would have inevitably occurred, and we would have been decapitated without knowing why.
Lenin pointed out: "Politics cannot but have precedence over economics," "Without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either." The great leader Chairman Mao has greatly developed the brilliant thought of Lenin. Chairman Mao teaches us over and over again: Politics is the commander, the soul in everything, "political work is the life-blood of all economic work." Vice-Chairman Lin points out: "'Grasp revolution, promote production' — this principle is absolutely correct. It correctly explains the relationship between revolution and production, between consciousness and matter, between the superstructure and the economic base and between the relations of production and the productive forces." While taking part in socialist construction we must never forget to continue the revolution under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. At all times, we must give prominence to proletarian politics and put revolution in command of production and use it to promote and lead production. We should go in for mechanization, still more should we go in for revolutionization, with the latter guiding the former. Only thus can we consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, adhere to the orientation of socialism and develop the productive forces by leaps and bounds.
Liu Shao-chi is now a political corpse, but the pernicious influence of the "theory of productive forces" he spread has not yet been eliminated. We should arm ourselves further with Chairman Mao's great theory of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, thoroughly criticize the "theory of productive forces," and firmly grasp revolution and energetically promote production so as to be doubly successful in revolution and production.
>>2601237Okay but is that machine learning or AI though? Those are quite uncontroversially still two different things. Honestly would have more confidence in it's effectiveness if it were the former.
mucho texto
china is big gay
cope
>>2601364>Practice is the criterion for testing truth. True. China post-reforms still exists today. The USSR does not. The only countries still sticking to a heavy "everything planned" mode of production, in both Cuba and North Korea, have totally failed to inspire millions of workers to fervent belief in Communism, or to conquer new technological heights (since so many "orthodox" MLs like to claim that a fully planned economy is more innovative and dynamic than any quasi-NEP, so where is North Korea's space station?)
History has vindicated the theory of productive forces while Maoists circle-jerking the cultural revolution continue to be irrelevant in the world outside of niche internet forums. All these words and texts spilled and Maoists cannot point to a single ideal society outside of 1960s China, which was disavowed by every other Chinese government and leader afterwards.
Truly western chauvinism is just another superiority complex, where Americans and Europeans who have never stepped foot in China a single time or consulted a single non-translated Chinese primary source on the cultural revolution, but have eagerly imbibed all the US State Department narratives on the China's "betrayal", consider themselves to be our modern day Lenins.
capitalism is inherently contrary to what logically would benefit humanity thats why they can't stop
>>2601374Genuinely the best retort this website has ever offered.
>>2601382>China post-reforms still exists today. The USSR does not. This is only a meaningful dichotomy if the USSR wasn't itself on the capitalist road, which it had been on long before China. The only comparison that matters here is analyzing different lanes of the capitalist road.
>both Cuba and North Korea, have totally failed to inspire millions of workers to fervent belief in CommunismAgain, you are uncritically parroting soviet revisionist lines as if they were socialist dogma. These states, despite revisionism and deviation, continue to succeed in providing a better quality of life for their people compared to before their respective revolutions. People in the DPRK lived better than those in the occupied South for most of their history. Their present backwardness is a relatively recent product of the famine and international sanctions of the 90s. While revolutionary forces still existed in their respective parties they both positively supported revolution worldwide. That is the fundamental responsibility of proletarian (revolutionary) internationalism as laid out by Lenin, not to "inspire a fervent belief in communism" by simply existing.
>since so many "orthodox" MLs like to claim that a fully planned economy is more innovative and dynamic than any quasi-NEP, so where is North Korea's space station?Why does North Korea need a space station? Socialist planned economies have objectively produced great innovations, and the greatest
real increases in quality of life and democratic rights in human history have been produced in such contexts. At times, this is exciting, like with spaceflight, but the humanist basis of these economies mean that unlike in capitalism, where "innovation" must be marketable first and foremost, socialist innovation is principally in the points and processes of production that are little-celebrated in bourgeois society, and it creates real benefits to the people without relying on global imperialist extraction. Your approach to this is emblematic of a petty bourgeois and labor aristocratic mindset more concerned with the toys and treats that come with being at the center of world imperialism and naively thinks that these conditions can be sustainably expanded to everyone on Earth.
>History has vindicated the theory of productive forces while Maoists circle-jerking the cultural revolution continue to be irrelevant in the world outside of niche internet forums.A willfully ignorant and patently absurd statement.
>All these words and texts spilled and Maoists cannot point to a single ideal society outside of 1960s ChinaBecause we communists don't deal in "ideals", we are materialists and analyze the world as it exists in order to change it. As Marx put it: "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point however is to change it." Lenin had no "ideal" society to point to, and still managed to lead the people in producing the first socialist state.
>Truly western chauvinism is just another superiority complexYou would know.
>have eagerly imbibed all the US State Department narratives on the China's "betrayal"Oh? The US State Department is pro-cultural revolution now? That's news to me, seeing as how they murdered and imprisoned the leadership of nearly every revolutionary org in the US that upheld the cultural revolution. Not to mention how downright jubilant (salivating, licking their chops might be more accurate) the US govt. was when the cultural revolution ended and reform and opening up began.
>>2563243>Why would western tech companies knowingly charge into a brick wall like that? Like I know they're stupid but surely not that stupid.they're absolutely that stupid. the US "AI bubble" in the stock market is
the biggest stock market bubble in US history. It is
even bigger than the one that led to the great depression. You have to understand,
over 90% of increased GDP in the USA over the past year comes from the AI bubble. And what's more important is, the entire AI bubble is perched precariously on top of Nvidia's chips, but Nvidia
doesn't even make chips. They just design them. Taiwan manufactures the.m. So this also accelerates the reunification crisis between "Taiwan" and the PRC. if reunification happens, burgers are cooked in the AI race. Listen to Norton.
>>2601580Is Bluey kino? I keep seeing it around and the artstyle is appealing to me. Hows the writing?
>>2601371>Okay but is that machine learning or AI though? Thats like asking if a golden retriever is a dog or an animal. Machine learning is a subset of AI.
>>2601775Really good overall! I play it for my 1.5yo kid and we both get to enjoy it. It's written to be a show where a lot of episodes have lessons for both kids and parents, and a lot of great background plotlines for the parents to pick up on as they binge watch with their kids. The lessons are good, the characters are lovable, and it's not annoying baby babble like 90% of little kids media. It's an engaging depiction of childhood/parenthood that can be really sweet and, particularly in the case of the episode "The Sign", heartbreaking.
My main criticism of it is that it very much centers an upper-petty bourgeois lifestyle with parents who have a ton of free time, own a pretty large home, and send their kids to a fancy waldorf school. Basically all of the characters in the show enjoy this privileged life (there's actually a pretty funny subtle joke where a French poodle has 9 kids, the implication being because she's rich and Catholic), and kids/parents from more common (working class) backgrounds aren't even acknowledged, let alone shown. I don't necessarily have an issue with kids shows presenting an idealized depiction of childhood, but the idealized depiction has a distinct class character that's pretty impossible to ignore. It's not sinister like Paw Patrol, which is straight-up copaganda banned in our house, but as a working class parent I know there are going to be times where I'll have to have tough conversations with my daughter, where I have to explain that not all parents can do and provide what Bluey's parents do.
>>2563243>Like the AI race is a tunnel painted on a brick wall? Why would western tech companies knowingly charge into a brick wall like that?There's a lot going into it. In part, it's less that they're stupid and more that that's where all the money is, so that determines what their companies do. Culturally, the high tech bourgeoisie also want to obviate the need for their pmc, especially after these minor rebellions related to palestine.
But in private, if you talk to anyone involved in ai, they'll admit that the math doesn't make sense. The chance of actually profiting off of the insane amount of money invested at this point is practically zero. The majority of people don't like ai or what it represents. It's actually useful applications are very narrow. No one really needs or wants it, but all this investment is predicated on the idea that it will be everywhere, doing everything, and somehow all these people that ai replaces are going to spend money on it to the tune of trillions of dollars.
I think as far as these ai developers are concerned, individually, there's nothing they can really do about it. That's where the money is to the point the us gov has more or less pledged to backstop them economically. Divesting from ai is akin to ordering the sea not to come in.
I'm speculating here, but I also think that, as a class, ai is considered an essential technology to the bourgeoisie for a number of reasons. The pmc has to be disciplined and ideally eliminated as a significant economic and social factor. It also represents a further enclosure of the digital, intellectual cultural commonses, increasing bourgeois control over these areas.
Further, intellectual automation helps mitigate the demographic crisis of whicg the western bourgeoisie are currently on the wrong side of the ratio. To use the disparity between China and the US as an example, China has, what, three or four times the population that the US does? In terms of productive output, the US simply can't compete with that. A lot of noise has been made about China's population decline, but even assuming that trend and the US's remain static, how many decades would it take before they reach parity?
I think realistically speaking also, the forces which have prevented the US's own population decline also aren't likely to prevail much longer. It's facing numerous incipient ecological and social disasters, which its political apparatus has refused to do anything about, and at this point I wonder if it's capable of doing so any longer. Between its economic dysfunction, deteriorating infrastructure, political schizophrenia, and the increasingly reactionary and classicidal ideology of its ruling classes, I don't think it's going to be an attractive destination for immigration for very much longer. I also don't think that any of these problems are likely to be fixed, because if operation afrikaner is anything to go by, the next big demographic bump the US is going to see are the most reactionary, bourgeois elements from Europe and the former British empire.
Tl;dr: they're not stupid, they're beholden to epochal social forces too great to escape.
Unique IPs: 25