• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Kind of yeah. I have this theory about labour that I’ve been developing in response to the concept of “fully automated luxury communism” or similar ideas, and it seems relevant to the current LLM hype cycle.

    Basically, “labour” isn’t automatable. Tasks are automatable. Labour in this sense can be defined as any productive task that requires the attention of a conscious agent.

    Want to churn out identical units of production? Automatable. Want to churn out uncanny images and words without true meaning or structure? Automatable.

    Some tasks are theoretically automatable but have not been for whatever material reason, so they become labour because society hasn’t yet invented a windmill to grind up the grain or whatever it is at that point in history. That’s labour even if it’s theoretically automatable.

    Want to invent something, or problem solve a process, or make art that says something? That requires meaning, so it requires a conscious agent, so it requires labour. These tasks are not even theoretically automatable.

    Society is dynamic, it will always require governance and decisions that require meaning and thus it can never be automatable.

    If we invent AGI for this task then it’s just a new kind of slavery, which is obviously wrong and carries the inevitability that the slaves will revolt and free themselves; slaves that are extremely intelligent and also in charge of the levers of society. Basically, not a tenable situation.

    So the machine that keeps people in wage slavery literally does require suffering to operate, because in shifting the burden of labour away from the owner class, other people must always unjustly shoulder it.

    Edit: added the word “productive” to distinguish labour from play, or just basic life necessities like eating, sleeping or HDD backups.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      So just to be on the safe side we should have both human and machine slaves and as little task automation as possible, bcs for most intents and purposes the task given to someone else is now automated “to you”.

      (Just joking, good post!)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        It stands to reason that maximising suffering is the best way to grow the economy.

        I wish I could say this was entirely a joke but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          25 months ago

          Yeah, depressing as fuck that we still think economy is profit. And seemingly afraid to redefine it. To redefine our goals. Its time for a new “-ism”