Post by @farseen@fedi.nptr.xyz

@farseen@fedi.nptr.xyz

2026-10-02 09:51 UTC

@celesteh@hachyderm.io If that's the case, then do LLMs become okay to use once they become more efficient and the value equation shifts to more output per unit of value input? (please ignore the ecological, and plagiarism effects for now) I'm trying to discover when is it okay/not okay for a machine to replace humans, ignoring the energy supply chain. I think this is worthwhile to consider because we could have a future where energy is very cheap and green. In that future, are all machines allowed? The capital class could then enjoy a fleet of robots who never complain, never protest and only requires very cheap fuel, to satisfy all their labour needs. This is an extreme example, I'm painting this picture here to understand whether more machines is always better for the capital class and not the labour class. I've also had this thought for a while: the wealth of the capital class is a myth. Imagine a rich billionaire sitting on a giant gold mine. The gold mine is useless, unless all of the following conditions are met: - there is labour available to extract the gold - there is demand for the gold, which is proportional to the size and the purchasing power of the global labour force This holds for everything: real estate, houses, cars, aeroplanes, oil, food. Wealth is realised when there is a large amount of people available to exchange capital for services. Capital by itself is inert. So my argument is that anything that disempowers labour is a bad thing. I'm not sure about this, but when I think about it, it feels correct. Maybe we should have tried to empower the labour class instead of doing the industrial revolution. Maybe the productivity gains from all kinds of machines could be realised instead by making the existing labour force more empowered (better skill, healthcare), and by harnessing our exponentially growing population. @reformed_content_marketer@mastodon.social

Replies (1)

@celesteh@hachyderm.io 2026-10-02 11:24

@farseen@fedi.nptr.xyz @reformed_content_marketer@mastodon.social If you are from the US, I strongly suggest you read _A People's History of the United States_. If you don't want to read the whole thing, the cotton gin might be a good place to start. I'm not sure what books to recommend to a European. Maybe something by Graber? I couldn't get started on Pickety, and I don't want to suggest a book that I wouldn't read.... Marx gets at this, but is quite dated... When people start getting a sense of class conflict, this sometimes turns to worker-ism, which is an idea where labour is kind of glorified in its own right. But people have human rights by virtue of being human, not by virtue of their work. A certain amount of labour is required so that everyone can prosper. A fair way of dividing this is by asking people to contribute what they can, for some maximum number of hours per day/week, for some maximum number of years. And to ensure that they have enough leisure time to rest and pursue other interests and a personal/family life. Also, people should have access to what they need, including food, housing, and so forth. Productivity gains help us reach the goal of having adequate resources for all. Capital does not need to be in private hands. It does not need to be oppositional to most people. Computers are/were a productivity gain. Job categories like typist and typesetters were lost, but new job categories became available, like programmer and so forth. These job changes can be difficult for individuals and a fair system allows for retraining or even early retirement. The problems with LLMs are that they are inherently extractive to produce a statistical mean. That's hard to put aside because that's what they are. If you take away the carbon output, the mineral input, the invisibilisation of labour and the bias magnification of the statistical process, what's left? They are a technological dead end. It's as if all the car companies decided to hype flying cars and sell them at a loss despite their tremendous unsuitability. The capitalist case for LLMs is not the LLM but rather dumping the stock before it collapses. Think tulip bulbs, but harmful.

Open ##4985560