Dan McQuillan has been warning about this since forever, to the point where I would've assumed that he'd be referenced if not interviewed int his article, though he wasn't. Here's a pretty short one from him. His basic argument is that AI is best understood as algorithmic Thatcherism, in which they'll silicon-wash the same austerity politics that neoliberalism has been feeding us forever.

US Leads World in Credulous Reports of ‘Lagging Behind’ Russia. The American military, its allies, and the various think-tanks it funds, either directly or indirectly, generate these reports to justify forever increasing the military budget.

This is nowhere near the worst on a technical level, but it was my first big fuck up. Some 12+ years ago, I was pretty junior at a very big company that you've all heard of. We had a feature coming out that I had entirely developed almost by myself, from conception to prototype to production, and it was getting coverage in some relatively well-known trade magazine or blog or something (I don't remember) that was coming out the next Monday. But that week, I introduced a bug in the data pipeline code such that, while I don't remember the details, instead of adding the day's data, it removed some small amount of data. No one noticed that the feature was losing all its data all week because it still worked (mostly) fine, but by Monday, when the article came out, it looked like it would work, but when you pressed the thing, nothing happened. It was thankfully pretty easy to fix but I went from being congratulated to yelled at so fast.

The Nordic countries are also on Earth, which we are destroying. Some of their wealth comes directly from that destruction. Norway is the 5th and 3rd largest oil and natural gas exporter, respectively, making their happiness the result of good social policy that makes up for capitalist inequality which is directly funded by destroying the Earth and fueling capitalism elsewhere.

Even setting the climate aside (a ridiculous thing to do, really), the Nordic model isn't possible to sustainably replicate elsewhere on Earth on capitalism's own term, because we can't make every country a net exporter of the most desired commodities for obvious reasons, or the beneficiary of complex historical circumstances, like neutrality during ww2 (Sweden), or a long-time colonial power (Denmark).

Put another way, there is no Nordic model available for Bangladesh, whose workers work six days a week in factories to make the cheap clothing that happy Norwegians wear. Norways needs Bangladeshes to keep their standard of living.

In a previous job, I spent a good amount of time in a Bangladeshi garment factory. That specific factory in which I worked had been on strike a few years prior, requesting a raise to dozens of dollars per month. That's not a typo -- per month!. The police fired into their picket line, killing and wounding hundreds. This fall, Bangladeshi garment workers went on strike again, demanding a tripling of the minimum wage from its current ~75USD per month.

The urban poverty that makes my life possible, so far away, out of sight and out of mind, is an absolute fucking disgrace. We should talk about it daily. When they go on strike, as those garment workers are now, every single westerner ought to strike in solidarity, even if motivated by nothing but shame. Instead, we don't even know that it's happening, at least in the anglosphere.

I've since become convinced that there''s only one path to a just and verdant world -- international solidarity. Communists and anarchists have filled libraries with ideas for what that might look like. I've read some tiny sliver of that corpus. If you actually want to know why some of us want capitalism defeated (beyond the anecdote that I just relayed), or if you're curious how much better some of us think the world could be, I'd be happy to point you towards books that spoke to me.

Parahprasing greatly here, but in her recent book, Naomi Klein pointed out that most Americans are pilled as fuck on neoliberalism, and because the pandemic is a naturally occurring and obvious contradiction to its fundamental tenets (individualism, meritocracy, competiton, etc.), the only way to square that circle was to go insane.

I find that framework very useful. These so called activists are pilled as hell on this fundamentally individualist concept of freedom that inundates us Americans from birth. It's an almost entirely empty conception of freedom. Basically, we can say whatever we want while owning guns and generally being selfish. No one is entitled to be free of childhood disease though. That's not freedom because it encroaches on others being selfish. If you genuinely believe in individual liberty above all, as Americans are taught from birth, then childhood vaccinations are wrong.

Unfortunately it's a really fucking stupid way to run a society.

I seriously don't understand how everyone is so confused about this. It's actually not cool at all to continuously drop bombs on densely inhabited areas while also denying them water, food, medicine, fuel and so on. Any further analysis or complexity has to build on top of that fucking obvious reality, not ignore it.

Copyright is broken, but that's not an argument to let these companies do whatever they want. They're functionally arguing that copyright should remain broken but also they should be exempt. That's the worst of both worlds.

1 fast 1 furious

I had Max Tegmark as a professor when I was an undergrad. I loved him. He is a great physicist and educator, so it pains me greatly to say that he has gone off the deep end with his effective altruism stuff. His work through the Future of Life Institute should not be taken seriously. For anyone interested, I responded to Tegmark's concerns about AI and Effective Altruism in general on The Luddite when they first got a lot of media attention earlier this year.

I argue that EA is an unserious and self-serving philosophy, and the concern about AI is best understood as a bad faith and self-aggrandizing justification for capitalist control of technology. You can see that here. Other commenters are noting his opposition to open sourcing "dangerous technologies." This is the inevitable conclusion of a philosophy that, as discussed in the linked post, reifies existing power structures to decide how to do the most good within them. EA necessarily excludes radical change by focusing on measurable outcomes. It's a fundamentally conservative and patronizing philosophy, so it's no surprise when its conclusions end up agreeing with the people in charge.

I've submitted apps to both stores many times.

I hesitate to use the word "rigorous," but Apple's process is certainly more involved, though I'd say it's also bureaucratic and even arbitrary. Their primary concern is clearly maintaining their tight control over their users' phones, which is an extremely lucrative monopoly. The play process, by comparison, is definitely lighter, though I don't know if I'd be comfortable saying it's less well vetted.

Philosophically, relying on either of the duopolies to screen the software we use for safety is ultimately a bad system, especially since they are creating this problem. Until very recently, the internet existed on websites. They are pushing us to use mobile apps because it is more lucrative for them. Apple takes something like a 20% cut of every single transaction that happens on any iPhone app. They don't even allow non-apple-webkit browsers on iOS, meaning that the iphone's chrome, firefox, etc. are actually different than Android's. They do this specifically to hamstring mobile browser development.

They've managed to align the incentives here by offering tech companies more advertising revenue through the mobile platform. Basically, if you make a mobile app, Apple takes a huge cut each time your users pay you, but companies also get to spy on you more, meaning more lucrative advertising.

Exactly this, and it's because capitalism uses computers backwards.

Yet another example of how capitalism uses computers backwards.