"Onions are good for you" said the onion peddler
176
(this is a follow up to my previous article "the thief of cope")
Onions are great. Very versatile, easy to grow, and delicious. I like eating onions. But sometimes, I need to cook for guests that can't stand them. I might try to sneak the onions in a sauce or call the guests out on their fraudulent taste-buds. What I never do though, is try to convince them to eat my onions because they are good for their health. It's an easy trick. Appeal to authority. But whose exactly? Who is telling people that onions are good for them? Scientists? But who is paying the scientists to say that? It doesn't take much head scratching to figure out the obvious : it's the onion peddler.
The field of technology is full of onion peddlers, especially those selling “the next big thing”. It doesn’t take that much nooticing to point out that the people making the most egregious predictions about the future are the ones selling the technologies of the future. Often, they are supported by the ones that can bill you to integrate it. It's easy to forget, but these onion peddlers are just selling you their very fancy onions. With classic technologies, the worst that could happen was wasting money on tech that brought little value to a business. From outside, it looked like big companies passing around their money to other big companies. They bought onions because everyone had them in their kitchen. Whether the promised benefits followed was not of much importance. The more money was wasted, the more buzzwords a CEO could cram into his TedTalk. But AI is different. It's not just about a few companies selling their bots to everyone. It's not about a CTO collecting Saas bills like pokemon gym badges to increase his tech-cred. It's not about tricking a bunch of silicon-valley investors to buy a couple of sport cars then closing down the shop. You may have heard the expression "nothing ever happens"? well this time something is actually happening: a massive devaluing of the economic worth of humans.
If you thought that class struggle was a thing of the past, AI will make you look back fondly on slavery. Slaves were needed by their masters; the project of AI is precisely to make you unneeded. Someone watched that Elysium movie and we should shoot for that. No more upward mobility through education, there are no jobs to move upward to anymore. Or maybe no more education period. Why train you when we can just train AI instead? The trained AI doesn’t need to be better than you, it just needs to ape you. Your career prospects are already dead, you just don't know it yet. You may be tempted to rationalize why the economic machine still needs you. Fatal mistake. Rationality is a tool that the onion peddler takes out of the shed when it's time to cut down on expenses. The ones who own the economic machine, the ones who steer it, they are not rational. They are emotional, they are class-aware, they have an agenda, and they remember. They hate costs, but they don't hate them equally. You, the human, you're the worst kind of cost. All of these years that the proletariat has been bullying the bourgeois-god-kings with labor laws and fair wage demands... well, it's time for revenge.
We like to think of businesses as systemic entities that follow the rules of a game described in an economics' textbook. But who writes those textbooks? Surprise, it's the onion subsidized friends of the onion peddler. So textbooks will tell you that businesses do everything in their power to maximize profit, but what they won't tell you is that they only maximize profit as far as they can control you. When you think of yourself as essential for the operations of a company, that's control you are taking from them. When you try to unionize, that's control you are taking from them. Remember, control trumps short term profit. Sure, AI might result in a degradation of the quality of the goods and services at first, but that's a price they are willing to pay to get rid of you. Because as a human, you wish for a better tomorrow. Somehow nowadays, that's too greedy. The utopia of the rich is a world without the poor. Literally.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but sugar-coating requires sugar, and the sugar peddler happens to be friends with the onion peddler. Next, we'll discuss why AI cannot innovate, and why MBA suits can’t understand that.
Share:
"Onions are good for you" said the onion peddler
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/194359328
The thief of cope
1967
Do people enjoy zero-sum games? I think they very much do. Most deny it because it beckons to more primitive days where life was the ultimate battle-royal: Grog beat enemy, Grog take everything. There's plenty of illustration of this more primitive state in fiction. If you've watched the Walking Dead, you may have noticed how that characters very quickly regress from their civilized selves to pro zero-sum gamers. Even though there's a whole planet to loot, the imminent scarcity they are faced with makes factions go to war against each other. In a post apocalyptic world, there's no place for collaborative value creation. But we don't need the apocalypse to reveal our natural proclivity towards zero-sum games. Talk to a historian and you will know that empires have always seen the world as a big zero-sum game, even when a whole continent had yet to be discovered. Talk to a marxist and he'll show you that the bourgeoisie is much more adept at playing the game than the proletariat. Talk to an economist however, and he'll throw sand into your eyes to distract you from an uncomfortable truth : "Trust me bro, we just need to make the cake bigger". Just make the cake the bigger... as if somehow, starting the renaissance, we magically figured out an economic system that allows us to grow economies like no other before. In tech-bro speak, it was all just "skill issue". But then, you remember the exponential leaps in technological progress and the new forms of energy harnessed. You point this out, and the economist scrambles with an indian accent "let me tell you something, let me me tell you something, it was the new economic paradigm and its countless jewish monetary tricks". Sound silly right ? That's what everyone believes nowadays. After all, isn't everybody trying to get rich ? Everyone dreams of a Bugatti, just in case they are suddenly asked to prove that they are not brokies. But how many can harness the sociopathic behavior that's necessary to grow your business? I'd argue that those are the minority. Or maybe I am being naive. Just like we are fast to revert to zero-sum thinking, we are also fast in discarding empathy for others when money starts flowing. The fact remains though, being rich is not about creating the most value, it's about maximizing your side of the zero-sum equation. Put yourself in the shoes of the capital holder. Every cent he gives you for your work is a missing one from his big scrooge mcduck like pile of pennies. The capitalist's essence is to make his side of the equation go as far away from 0 as he can possibly get away with. He only gives away when he is promised a bigger return, or when he wants to avoid a bigger loss. These are the rules of the game. Rules the masses have such a hard time coping with, Sociology was invented to study its effect on their confused plebeian brains.
Among the sea of copes, one held some truth for a couple of decades. Let us refer to this idea as the "meritocratic cope", which goes something like this : Even if you don't physically own the means of production, you can have a cozy life if you can develop some skills that require an above average-intellect. How much above average depends on too many factors to cite. But over time, the overall trend has been that the more advanced technology got, the farther away from the middle of the bell curve you needed to be. For those with lesser intellects but loads of money, you could also coast through life with a series of bullshit jobs. You just need a pay-to-win diploma from a fancy school made by the rich for their less genetically fortunate off-springs. Both paths are not equal. The former genocides your hair follicles, nukes your skin, empties your eyes and gives you a vague air of "this guy has been through some shit". The latter is rife with opportunities to enjoy life, expand your horizons with equally narrow minded peers, and you end up walking out feeling competent to tard-wrangle the unorganized entropy of the labour force into higher quarterly earnings. You're not just an idea guy, you're a visionary. You don't know how to do anything yourself, but it's okay. You are a visionary.
But this is coming to an end. I'm not quite sure about the second path, but I can quite confidently assert that it's over for the former. The culprit? Artificial intelligence. If you were wondering where this rigmarole was leading to, it was all necessary exposition to understand where all the hate I have towards AI is coming from. In my next article, we will examine why the latest AI progress is the ultimate "checkmate, atheist" move to whomever has hope for a brighter future. No more hope, no more cope, no more peace, just problems.
Share:
The thief of cope
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/170366511
