[tim333]

A video link https://youtu.be/lrOVKHg_PJQ

I think it's plainly mumbo jumbo. I mean take:

"capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production"

We've had capitalism for centuries with no AI production. As a time saver I often find once someone comes up with one bit of nonsense you can find better things to do than analyse all their other statements in case there are some non bunk aspects.

[balamatom]

>We've had capitalism for centuries with no AI production.

But it was capitalism that ended up producing AI. And if that's how things have ended up, then that must've been where things had been going all along, no? (Ask the Cheshire Cat for the opposite statement.) That's teleology for you, it's a thing that's usually obvious in hindsight, but, as you demonstrate, even that not always.

And if you and your ancestors have never lived under any other social system besides the one that evolved into contemporary capitalism, how would you even be able to make the distinction between the telos of capitalism and the telos of any other global process? What would be your point of reference, experientially speaking? Do you even know any other dreams besides the ones that capitalism dreams throughout your waking hours?

Back to Plato's cave with you it seems, and don't, I repeat, please don't think about limited liability corporations, the construct of "personhood" that the legal system ascribes them, and how the only thing that can even attempt to kill a corporation is a government (which is just another kind of "corporation", in the sense of rule-based meta-entity which uses human intelligence as a replaceable building block). And governments have been largely captured (outsmarted) by the corporations. For decades at this point. Qui bono? You Bono?

On your way there allow me to guess, you believe that there's least one school of economics which is not "mumbo jumbo" (a term, besides the tastelessness of dismissiveness, also bearing subtle racist connotations), don't you?

EDIT: Check this shit out:

>Mungo Park's travel journal Travels in the Interior of Africa (1795) describes 'Mumbo Jumbo' as a character, complete with "masquerade habit", whom Mandinka males would dress up as in order to resolve domestic disputes

From Wikipedia, emphasis mine. Consider!

[dumbledoren]

> But it was capitalism that ended up producing AI

No, it was the scientific method. Back in the mid to late 19th century when scientific research was done in an open-source way without the presence of capital and corporations, science had the fastest progress it had in human history. After the capital took control of science and research through patents and funding, the rate of progress slowed greatly. Thomas Jefferson's views on patents also aligns with this: He said that countries that did not have patents were as productive as those that did have. (he was the first president of the patent office).

[balamatom]

Surely there must be plenty of rigorous studies by now which convincingly demonstrate how "AI" as sold today is a bad idea? Not to mention tons of individual experiences which fail to be acknowledged by science as datapoints, for which we have the wonderful term "anecdata".

Neither seems to be stopping capitalism from forcing the existence of AI upon us (nor of the proto-AI technologies, such as the ones that gather data for it, or make public opinion receptive to it). Knowledge is [nothing without] power, and it saddens me to see how power-blind supposedly "intelligent" people keep making themselves, leaving the reins to self-important idiots who... do you think they even have an agenda? They're just like us, status monkeys doing whatever the smartphone commands them to do.

And this is, again, AI in the narrow, marketing sense. I'm one of those frowned upon people who say a corporation, or a government, already is an artificial intelligent subject, just a very slow one.

[tim333]

Wikipedia disagrees a little on mumbo jumbo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_(phrase)

Apparently it comes from the Mandinka word "Maamajomboo". I don't think using African words is racist, if anything it's pro African.

re "but it was capitalism that ended up producing AI", capitalism has also produced sandwich toasters for example but to thus declare "capitalism can only be sandwich toasters" would be equally silly as "capitalism can only be artificial intelligence production."

[balamatom]

Using an aspect of an African religion as a metonym for "worthless nonsense", sonorous as it is, is still pretty fucking colonialist.

And the example you give to point out what you think is a false equvalence, is itself a false equivalence. Nobody says sandwich toasters are eating the world, if anything they help to feed it :)

[klipt]

I think it's more evolution that produced intelligence. Evolution also produced capitalism. Capitalism is just one environmental variation that evolution can run in.

[balamatom]

Same conflation already happened upthread. Classic Sapir-Whorf stuff (rejected as that linguistic hypothesis might be.) Imagine trying to do philosophy in English, a language where blunt treachery passes for subtlety, and the normative complexity threshold is so pathetically low!

The phrase "artificial intelligence production" (as seen here https://etscrivner.github.io/cryptocurrent/#_footnotedef_22 - courtesy of https://retrochronic.com/#introduction - and Land's source [IS (has picture of)] a guy in a suit and tie and not presumably on speed! rejoice!) can mean either "production of artificial intelligence" or "artificial production of intelligence".

But it's very difficult to consistently point out the distinction between the two. Not without overloading the sentence up to the point of people starting to say things like "Mumbo Jumbo, go away, we are good and u r ghey!"

So, I'd rather describe that distinction as power fucking points:

- "evolution" [IS (the autopoiesis of)] "intelligence"

- "capitalism" [IS (the autopoiesis of)] "artificial intelligence"

All things considered, the notion of "intelligence" is itself pretty artificial. But I reckon yall are too intelligent to be ready for that conversation just yet. Give 'em time.

Clinton said it best: it all depends on what your definition of "is", is...