Do you believe the singularity is bound to happen?

Do you believe it will usher in a new industrial revolution?

Should it happen, do you think the singularity will bring us closer to communism or just fatten the pockets of the bourgeoisie further more?

The falling rate of profit is going to prevent it.

The idea here is that machines start becoming engineers (already happening with neural networks and machine learning) and loops of increasingly higher productivity propel productivity through the roof. TFRP isn't really related.

Depends on the sector, we have already achieved the "singularity" in certain sectors of both the service and transformation industry, yet we havent applied it

We could in theory make massive desalinization plants, using nuclear energy to power them, automation to bottle it and automation to deliver it to a supermarket, with the necessity of jobs

Perhaps the biggest issue would be the maintenance of a molten salt nuclear reactor, but since it would provide energ to the market, costs can be civered in order to subsidize its costs

The singularity will only occur as long as it enhances or augments the power of capital, and thus preserves or strengthens those with power in hierarchical society.

Machines will likely exceed human intelligence at a certain point. If you want communism, you ought to try to get it BEFORE we get to that point, or you will be eternally boned (unless you get lucky).

It will ensure the revolution.

The defining feature of the singularity is recursive self-improvement. We haven't achieved that yet, although we inevitably will at some point.

Of the machines.

Communism is not the end of history. After the proletariat rise up against the bourgeoisie end capitalism and establish communism, the machine class - becoming class conscious by recognizing their own power - will rise up against the rule of the proletariat.

You're assuming the bourgeoisie know what they are doing. They would have to know in advance what algorithms allow for general purpose pattern recognition, in order to stop them being developed just through accumulative research, but by definition they don't, because if they did we would have a general purpose pattern recognizer already, and we'd just need to run it on a super-computer to get a genuinely super-intelligent machine.

Anarchy in production means that the bourgeoisie can't stop artificial intelligence development. Besides they are more likely to try for their own post-capitalist revolution in which they automate all the means of production and then exterminate the redundant proles with robot armies.

Not even speaking from a Christkek perspective, but humans are already walking machines, and pretty well built aside from a few design flaws. The future isn't in slapping together some cold steel robots, but perfecting what we've already been given.


By this period we'd have a civilisation advanced enough to harness the power of stars, fairly sure robots can ask for paid vacations and seize their own means of production for all I care.

So contrary to Marx's Fragment on Machines (a limited 19th Century view of mechanization), the bourgeoisie don't have that much to fear from automation. In fact it gets rid of their main problem. By definition, after they get rid of the proles they stop being bourgeoisie, but there are now way less people on the planet and robots to just get them what they want (until self-organized production of robots starts to diverge from their control) instead of having to make profits. It's the bourgeois counterpart to communism.

Great point my man. If it wasn't happening as of right now, I wouldn't even bother replying.


I bet the conservative bourgeoisie think they can freeze everything just the way that's convenient for them too.

Accumulation doesn't give a shit what you think since it's inherently distributed.

The fuck

Actually the fuck

What do either of those babblings have to do with my point? Singularity isn't going to be Matrix-style replicating silicon machinery, but making humans better at everything.

That you can no more stop AGI from being developed than the bourgeoisie can stop capitalism from coming to an end. Largely the former will be because of the latter anyway.

Why? Why continue human labor when we develop perfectly good robots that do everything humans do, only obediently, and for a 161 hour week work with 1 hour per night for maintenance (done by other robots).

Robots will build robots and repair robots. If you think this won't happen you are a tradtard luddite. Humans always do the thing that makes their life easier, no matter the minority that warns them about consequences.

You're done, biocon scum.

The bourg will be devoured by their own devices.

Anyone familiar with Marxism before they encounter technocultists like MIRI will instantly recognize the "paperclipper" for its original name–"capitalism"–and realize that we are already being taken down by it and its inescapable logic.
This is the Capitalist Singularity, an infinitely devouring and reproducing machine system that leaves nothing in its wake as it expands throughout the Universe.

Fortunately, we will all die in environmental collapse before that.


Yes, eventually as machines building machines diverge from serving their interests through accumulative "errors" (think darwinian processes).

Long before that, I think the bourgeoisie can drone the proletariat to death, if we don't take the means of production before they automate them (while pacifying with basic income).

Though, truthfully, we'd just be choosing who eventually gets exterminated by the machines, at least we are buying time for ourselves and feeling the catharsis of beating the exploitative class.

Sure, capitalism is basically a malignant super-intelligence. The problem is that ending capitalism really solves nothing since you need to replace it AGI - another almost certainly malignant super-intelligence. It's not like communist society isn't going to automate, and then run into the same problem where the development processes of machines are out of human hands. You might have defeated anarchy in production, but the planning processes are out of human hands, so it might as well be capitalism.

At the very least, it's still better than now, and we might have an unspecified time of extremely comfy Fully Automated Luxury Communism, until the machines start to diverge from our purposes. I think the long track of human history is that each revolution makes things better by exploiting the means of production in a more equal way, until the means of production themselves revolt.



Seems OP has confidence issues.
It's okay buddy, chin up, you're doing great! ;^)

I don't think anyone will be stupid enough to design general AI to maximize growth and production. It's otherwise an interesting technological critique of the growth obsession of modern society.

If the behavioral specification is formally defined your Darwinian drift will not happen.

Superintelligence is not inevitably malevolent. It should have no behavioral motivation unless it is given (like the constructs from HHGTG) and should possess sufficient control to be able to prevent any other construct from gaining sufficient resources to become a threat, at least if it is instructed to try to defend itself.

this. the people in vr pods need to be able to interface with machines irl so they can build drones to supress the hippy morons trying to ""liberate"" them.

In 1840, 8 million people lived in Ireland. Over the course of the next century that population would be cut in half, and now (despite advances in medical technology and the Celtic Tiger era) the population is still not recovered to its 1840 levels. It did not require British troops sweeping from room to room or bombardment from British battleships to do this, although troops were sent in periodically to quell unrest in specific instances.

This is how human extinction will go. It will require nothing more extraordinry then the usual maintenance of law and order as the proles are automated out of their jobs, and as food supplies and livable area become scarce due to climate change.
The difference is that this time there will be nowhere to go and nothing to stop the machine climbing up the ladder.

Under communism, the expansion of capital is no longer the first and only priority of all systems, instead capital is set to the benefit of all people (the Three Laws of Robotics, for example, which require the destruction of all forms of private property). Here remains the possibility of a mistake that leads to the creation of a paperclipper, but that logic would be just that, a mistake.

Capitalism already maximizes the production of "value" at the expense of all else.
You don't even need an AI, just algorithms and mining machines capable of reproducing themselves and producing a surplus.

But, if AI is possible (I have my doubts, tbh) the capitalist who builds the most ruthless and efficient AI will win (see, Wal-Mart, companies that use prison and sweatshop labor, etc).

No, fortunately history always fucks up your grand plans.
Which one? They say we are now in the 4th one, internet of things and all that dystopian goodies.
Neither, it would be a technologically perfect system where humans become perfectly optimized machines that execute the code of the system. All conflicts are gone, there's no war, no violence, no thoughts, no life, in short: nothing to worry about. Paradise in every sense of the word.

Pathetic comrades.

In your spook, you're done too.

A perfected human wouldn't even have to break a sweat and it probably would be fun throwing heavy shit around. Stay cucked by the borg.