• culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s a clear argument to be made that the end of USSR really let capital off the leash so to speak. So if you imagine the theft of surplus value being a spectrum, after the USSR was no longer a counterweight, capital no longer had any reason to stay on the nicer end of the spectrum.

      So in the terms of tech, this means that tech is no longer developed to just be useful/practical unless there’s an exploitive monetization scheme attached or in the works. This is basically the enshittification cycle. Cool new functional thing that’s cheap/free. But really it’s just a ploy for market/platform capture via market share etc. So within short order, that useful tech gets bled of it’s value proposition as it approaches monetization/enshittification. The profit motive has recuperated the development of tech completely. It’s almost impossible to create something useful if it doesn’t already have some profit/rent seeking mechanism embedded. And if you try to do a startup to challenge some market giant, they most likely just buy it out and bury it before it becomes a serious threat. Maybe if your lucky, some aspects will get ported into the existing product in some half-assed manner to appease the user base.

      Sorry for the rambling rant, I had a few beers earlier.

      • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I know there’s been a lot written on the USSR opening the floodgates for Capital, but I think it’s time to abstract that out to “anti-enshittification anchors” that capital need to have to function, but that it is inherently hostile to and will seek to kill or co opt by any means necessary.

        I don’t mean like regulatory capture, I mean bodies that actively threaten capital’s existence and by doing so force the concessions that ironically keep capitalism ticking over.

        • culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “anti-enshittification anchors” that capital need to have to function, but that it is inherently hostile to and will seek to kill or co opt by any means necessary

          This just sounds like the mask-on progressive liberalism to me, but I’d appreciate more info if you can provide some readings or additional info.

      • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a clear argument to be made that the end of USSR really let capital off the leash so to speak. So if you imagine the theft of surplus value being a spectrum, after the USSR was no longer a counterweight

        I think collapse of the USSR was a symptom and not a cause

        Average heights in the west started falling from 1970 onwards. Not just the US but all of europe too, so it had nothing to do with immigration

        US wages have also been stagnant since 1973. IDK what the wage timeline is for europe

        • culpritus [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree, didn’t mean to say it was the only thing that caused this shift. More so that capital no longer had as much resistance to its dominance globally as the USSRs influence in global consciousness waned. It’s partly what leads into the neoliberal turn, end of history, irrational exuberance, believing their own propaganda, etc. There’s no longer any real counter-narrative, only the marketplace of capitalist competition where the truth is up for bid. There’s also other factors too. Global financialization and free trade agreements pushed via IMF and World Bank etc have aided the consolidation of capital to a point of concentration that’s unprecedented to my knowledge. But this is still interrelated to ‘no other option’ ideology that propagated directly from the fall of the Berlin Wall etc.

          I don’t know enough about geopolitics in the 70s to point to more direct events or such. But it’s pretty clear that once 68 failed to realize actual socialism, most labor power blocs start to decline in the face of cold war propaganda. The window of discourse in the west gets pulled further right until the ‘greed is good’ 80s anchors it on the right.

    • ProfessorAdonisCnut [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      The top 1% consumer in the world is basically comfortable at this point. There isnt really a consumerist way of making their lives better. Like you can sell more high quality stuff beyond the top 1% by making it cheaper through process improvements, but its not necessarily tech advancement.

      That’s never what held back capitalist expansion, the direction of economic surplus towards the luxury of a tiny minority is a defining trait of feudal production that capitalism substantially reduced. It only played a role in technological progress back at a point when meaningful advancement was still achievable by kind of resources and directed effort of the eccentric and idle rich pursuing experimentation.

      The stagnation we have isn’t a result of a lack of possible gadgets for the 1%, it’s us pressing more and more often against the boundary of what research can be incentivized by the profit motive. Capitalist technological innovation has always been primarily about process improvements and expansion to/creation of new markets, with resources only directed where capital returns are reasonably expected; any scientific discovery is purely incidental. There’s also the fact that most scientific advancement within capitalism has been state-backed, and neoliberalism has eroded the institutions involved.

      • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s also less incentive to do process improvements when there’s cheap labor available. So the current arc of “development” is casting more and more people into greater and greater poverty.

        Without the ballast of a proletarian state that prevents or fights capitalist expansion into new labor markets, the capitalist solution is to create death, destruction, and poverty to force people’s surplus value out of them.

      • flan [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s us pressing more and more often against the boundary of what research can be incentivized by the profit motive

        yea i think you nailed what i was reaching for much more succinctly here

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not because we’ve reached any sort of technological apex, but because we’ve perhaps reached a point where the capitalist mechanisms for innovation are sputtering.

      It’s the neoliberal mechanisms. The machine was doing OKAY for tech progress under Keynesian policy. Not better than socialism but it wasn’t the crawl we’re currently seeing.

      The top 1% consumer in the world is basically comfortable at this point. There isnt really a consumerist way of making their lives better. Like you can sell more high quality stuff beyond the top 1% by making it cheaper through process improvements, but its not necessarily tech advancement.

      They do want immortality.

    • Wheaties [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      (The following is the perspective of an outsider enthusiast, please disregard or correct me where needed)

      Physics has plateaued somewhat, as well. Part of it is just the scale. It’s difficult to learn things about particles that are smaller than the equipment you’re using to measure things. It’s also hard to justify the funding, too. “Hey, give us blempty hundred thousand dollars to disprove a hypothesis.” Not quite as sexy or thrilling as the venture capitalists’ pie in the sky.

      …but… I also wonder if maybe… maybe we’ve gotten into a bit of a rut with established physics. Like for example, I don’t understand wave-particle duality. The bit I specifically don’t understand is the particle. Waves make sense, we can see interference patterns, light ever-so-slightly bends round corners, different wavelengths translate to different amounts of energy. But. The fuck is a particle. It really seams like it’s just a neat trick to make the sums easier.

      • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It really seams like it’s just a neat trick to make the sums easier.

        Part of what’s weird about fundamental physics is that it is, in a sense, all just tricks to make the math easier. When you get below the level of non-relativistic QM (and even, arguably, at that level), the distinction between the mathematics of the theory and the theory itself starts to collapse. Some of this is probably just due to the fact that events and patterns at that scale are just so unfamiliar to us and our everyday experience: we can make intuitive sense of things like forces, acceleration, mass, and other stuff that’s in the ontology of classical mechanics because we live in that world. Fields, Lie groups, fiber bundles, and other essential bits of the formalism at the QFT level are much harder for us to understand, because they can only roughly be mapped onto things that are familiar from our lived experience. This is part of why things like QFT, QED, and other candidate “fundamental” theories just seem like bags of mathematical tricks: in a very literal sense, those theories are telling us that the world just is a set of formal relationships and interdependent patterns. When you ask something like “well what is the theory really telling us, beyond the math?” for classical mechanics, I can give you a story–a narrative–about the world that maps the mathematics onto familiar concepts. When you ask the same question about QFT, there’s no easily accessible metaphor or story: it’s structure all the way down. Statements like “light sometimes behaves like a particle” means nothing more or less than “it’s useful to think of light as being quantized in some contexts, because the mathematics seems to work that way.”

      • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel like unless we figure out an extremely clever trick, we need just gigantic particle accelerators or quantum computers orders of magnitude better than we can currently conceive of to make substantial steps forward in physics anymore. Like, we’re not even talking “Well, the USSR/China could do it because they weren’t/aren’t as beholden to the profit motive”, we’re talking particle accelerators the size of fucking countries, and helium liquid cooling on large scales to maintain quantum coherence unless we figure out more room-temperature shit.

        String theory is a neat idea and I do genuinely find it interesting and have read books on it, but at the end of the day it’s just a giant “so what” to me. Not “what’s the point of making physics advancements” obviously, but “what’s the point of creating these massive, complicated theories if we need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to prove them right or wrong”.

      • c0mpost@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was under the impression that this federated network of self-hosted servers we’re using to communicate right now was web 3.0

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is? I truly didn’t know.

          Around where I am, and in much of the internet at large, “Web 3.0” is only talked about when it comes to “how can we put this on the blockchain” or “how can we get even more surveillance and monetization out of this” discussions.

          • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            Web 3 was never anything but marketing nonsense. To be fair, that was true for Web 2.0 as well. Web 2.0 was always about rebranding the internet as a profitable thing for high finance to invest in following the 2000 dotcom crash. It had nothing to do with any particular technology, and O’Reilly’s manifesto about Web 2.0 was filled with nothing but marketing slogans. After all, he was just a knock-off “Windows ME for Dummies” book publisher who stumbled on a con that San Francisco financiers loved to use. Almost 20 years later the crypto weirdos - who had been at their own con for the majority of the intervening years - thought that making a sequel of O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 con would be an excellent idea. It’s bullshit all the way down and always has been.

            astronaut-2 astronaut-1

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’sn what, 100k active users on the entire lemmyverse? Our 1k active users are a significantly outsized proportion of all that traffic? We’re very small.

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whatever eventually blows up in the coming future will retroactively call itself Web 3.0 when everything else dies to it.

  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    The internet, like many great and terrible things, will not die quickly or cleanly. It’s death throes will be horrible and inflict great suffering, and it’s corpse will swell with unnatural life even more terrible than its forbear.

    • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s already gotten much harder for me to Google good sources of information that goes against the mainstream capitalist ideals compared to a few years ago

      It’s not just AI, the US state will also greatly expand their control on the flow of information as they continue to increase the need to suppress workers domestically and internationally

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        ·
        1 year ago

        Use Yandex. I’m not joking, I have started to get better results on it and the image search is genuinely much better, in particular the reverse image search is waaaaay better.

      • MaoTheLawn [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The CIA and other financial institutions already read books from leftist authors to find stats that they need to conceal - Super Imperialism — Michael Hudson

        "Politicians in charge of national statistics encourage popular misunderstanding, but my statistical analysis tells a different story from what is widely believed. A few years ago I sought to update my calculations on the impact of U.S. military spending and foreign aid on the balance of payments. But the Commerce Department had changed Table 5 of its balance-of-payments report, dealing with foreign aid and other government programs, in a way that no longer reveals the extent to which foreign aid programs generate a transfer of dollars from foreign countries to the United States. I phoned the statistical division responsible for collecting these statistics, and in due course reached the technician responsible for the numbers. “We used to publish that data,” he explained, “but some joker published a report showing that the United States actually made money off the countries we were aiding. It caused such a stir that we changed the accounting format so that nobody can embarrass us like that again.”

        I realized that I was the joker who was responsible for the present-day statistical concealment."

        https://medium.com/@davi./super-imperialism-f7e92ba1f4f0

        And:

        "Well, I thought that this was going to be a warning to other countries. And indeed, there was a very quick Spanish translation and Japanese translation. But the main purchases, as we’ve talked about a year ago, were the CIA and the Defense Department.

        Immediately Herman Kahn hired me to the Hudson Institute and gave a very large grant for me to explain to the government how imperialism was working. And the U.S. government used this as a how-to-do-it book."

        https://michael-hudson.com/2021/10/we-make-the-rules/

        • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, I’m convinced a similar thing happened in my city. The local police department used to share the raw data from their “Community Survey”, including the age of people who responded to their survey. Someone posted the police’s official report to reddit a few years ago, and I shared a few comments pointing out that the raw data showed that less than 20% of their responses came from people 30 years or younger. There were literally more responses from people 70 years and older than people 30 years or younger. The average age of respondents was in the 60’s,… And that’s not to mention the survey gets sent out to homeowners. Of course, this survey showed that people wanted more police, that they feel safe around police, and that they see crime on the rise, but the pigs didn’t want people to know this opinion survey was filled out overwhelmingly by geriatric landowners. The years since I pointed it that out on reddit (which people in my city know the police browse), they don’t make that raw data available. joker-gaming

      • SerLava [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google doesn’t even want to help you find information anymore. 5 times a fucking day the thing gets pissed off that I’m rephrasing my searches, and makes me click the captcha box. It just wants you to click ads, buy shit, and fuck off- not find out information for free.

        The antitrust case against Google right now is going to be huge. The actual chance of them losing isnt high, even though they should, but just the existence of the lawsuit is going to make them tamp down on their anticompetitive behavior until the smoke clears. Last time this happened, it happened to Microsoft. That’s when we GOT Google in the first place, and a lot of other new kids on the block. We could see some actually amazing search tools appear in a few years because of this, especially if they actually lose

  • laziestflagellant [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like eventually google (and other websites but especially google) will realize the extent of the damage and will have to rebuild their foundations to combat the endless, automated and financially incentivized math hallucinations, but I really wonder how bad the damage is going to get before we reach that point.

    Probably a bunch of dead people tbh, see Ann Reardon’s series on Litchenberg woodburning

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s an open question at this point if highly financialized western capitalism can undertake that kind of productive re-building. Personally I don’t think it is capable.

    • macerated_baby_presidents [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      aw that’s sad. i assumed people knew better. This and Jacob’s Ladders are the kind of thing where you set it up in one room, and you plug it in from the other room. That video of someone holding the HV end with their bare hands is nuts, I wouldn’t even do that with line voltage. Same old story: people get acclimated to the danger, until one day they’re working in the shop alone late at night and make a tiny mistake.

      “we’re talking 2000 volts here, we’re not playing with tiny amounts of current”

      aghh

  • tamagotchicowboy [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As someone that works with cleaning up after AI, nah don’t worry, capitalism and climate change with keep it in a tight cage. Future peoples will be confused why capitalist Murica had such limited trite uses for AI similar to how the Imperialist Romans only used the steam engine for opening temple doors or similar stories.

    To add, Chat gpt’s answers are curated by people not given too long to QA select questions and areas, like the story of the mechanical Turkish chessplayer most of AI’s brain power is still human-derived and these workers (esp non-imperial core) are very low paid and non experts in their fields.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Noticed this the other day when I got a Quora chat gpt answer telling me that it was dangerous to transform a 5V 2.4A electric current to a 12V 1A electric current, to supply electricity to a device needing a 12V 1A input current.

    Yeah I’ll just supply the device with over double the amperage it’s designed for, along with an incorrect voltage, thanks Quora.