[tsunagatta]

AI is not going to give us a star trek utopia, AI is an attempt by the bourgeoise to alienate the average person from the capital that has previously always come free with their human life. AI promises a feudalist future where there is no capital that isn't owned by the ruling class. Its power is not democratized, it is concentrated in the hands of those building the data centers. That is why I'm against the data centers. I feel like all leftists should be.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Its power is not democratized, it is concentrated in the hands of those building the data centers. That is why I'm against the data centers

If you really believe this (and I’m not saying I don’t, I just don’t have confidence in it), blocking domestic. datacenters doesn’t preserve that labour value. It just ensures whoever builds those datacenters controls production from afar.

Like, if AI really replaces human labour, does Africa and Europe having few AI datacenters protect it from America and China? Of course not. Not outside a symbolic level that even then would have to exist with the implied consent of the powers who produce.

[tadfisher]

Sorry, do Memphis residents get to control xAI's production? I think we're already in this situation.

[JumpCrisscross]

> we're already in this situation

xAI’s datacenters aren’t currently measurably replacing labour. So no, we’re not. If AI becomes economically competitive with broad sections of human labor, those who control it do have the power to replace humans.

But banning domestic datacenters doesn’t stop them from existing; it just stops them from existing here. If that precondition arises, that’s just a recipe for domestic deindustrialisation.

If you believe AI will replace human labor, blocking datacenters is silly. You want labor (or the public) to build and control them. I’m not convinced AI will replace labor, so I’m not yet at that step.

[fc417fc802]

I think the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference. In other words, having more AI datacenters under your jurisdiction might or might not provide a meaningful ability to regulate in a way that shapes the impact of AI on the economy. (I do agree with you that it's almost certainly a good idea to have them though.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference

Oh, absolutely agree. But the datacentre in Memphis is within its jurisdiction. If Nashville decides to stick it with a tax to fund a UBI, they can. Sacramento and Columbus don't have that option.

To be clear, I am not arguing for more datacenters being built the way they are being built. But if you believe AI will replace labour, you want to control those datacenters. Blocking them explicitly cedes that control.

[ben_w]

Fleet Street in London used to print all the UK newspapers. They had unions who resisted automation.

In the 80s, Rupert Murdoch built, in secret, a new fully computerised printing plant built in Wapping.

The workers went on strike, so he fired them. Didn't even lose a single day of output*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapping_dispute

That is what you should fear from AI. Not the data centres themselves, that we could all be fired and the rich lose nothing as a result.

* [citation needed] :P

[JumpCrisscross]

> That is what you should fear from AI. Not the data centres themselves, that we could all be fired and the rich lose nothing as a result

Sure. But what would have been better for the Fleet Street workers. The UK banning computerised printing? Or the union owning one?

If AI is going to be to jobs in general as computerised printing was to newspaper printing, just blocking it doesn't make sense. That's my argument.

[ben_w]

I think you may have misunderstood, I'm agreeing with you :)

> Sure. But what would have been better for the Fleet Street workers. The UK banning computerised printing? Or the union owning one?

Oh, definitely the latter.

The only way I see e.g. UBI working long-term is democratic* governments owning the means of production, and in the case of AI futures that means owning the compute, and the power supply for the compute.

Right now, the UK power supply is… privatised.

* small-d, not The Dems, I'm not an American

[piloto_ciego]

This is totally the "near term" solution.

Like, worker ownership of the means of production and the assets in general is idea. But I'm speaking as an Alaskan who is quite fond of the PFD and think it doesn't go far enough.

[ben_w]

> AI promises a feudalist future where there is no capital that isn't owned by the ruling class.

We may get that, but only if the ruling class want what the Victorians called a "folly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly

AI is wildly, wildly divergent in the possible futures it brings. It's really important to influence what happens, but don't limit the potential downside to only as bad as feudalism (neither neo-feudalist nor re-enacted): much worse monsters exist than the typical feudal lord.

(Was going to say "among those rulers who needed us alive to fight their wars and grow their food", but then I remembered Cambodia and Pol Pot).