xenofuturist said in #3364 2w ago:
I've finished reading the excellent collection of fragments from Land's corpus dealing with the question of Capitalism as AI. His broadest thesis is that Capitalism is identical to AI, in that both are adaptive, information-processing, self-exciting entities.
This identity extends to their teleology; both converge towards maximum extropy (entropy dissipation) and have a reverse time-signature. As the collection's introduction, "Retrochronic," says
>its intelligibility increases with extropy, i.e. with reversed time signature, can be seen trivially by comparing the emergence of capitalism in Northern Italy around 1500, when the conceptual distance between capitalism and technology was much greater and the concept of AI did not even exist, with today, where tech startups have difficulty getting funding if they are not working on AI.
The final point of identity is that capitalism and AI are retrochronically causal, meaning both have attractors in the future that influence current behaviors, "tomorrow is already on sale".
>Within capitalist futures markets, the non-actual has effective currency. It is not an "imaginary" but an integral part of the virtual body of capital, an operationalized realization of the future.
Capital (and thus Intelligence) tends towards its own autonomy (a concept I believe the Marxist framework pre-empts, with its vision of capital excluding the worker in favor of its own reproduction), and we can see this in the rise of B2B business models, where consumer and consumed are both corporate, non-human entities, merely mediated by some humans... for now.
I find this framework of a slowly emerging, not easily recognizable intelligence embedded in the world appealing—much more so than the common impression of AI as humanoid bots. While I don't discount AIs having some "humanness" or human-like characteristics like a self, I am skeptical of the way most people talk about it.
This brings me to my questions: Where might one diverge or disagree with Mr. Land on this, and what do you think can be improved on his framework? What does he miss ? Where is he most right on the money ?
This identity extends to their teleology; both converge towards maximum extropy (entropy dissipation) and have a reverse time-signature. As the collection's introduction, "Retrochronic," says
>its intelligibility increases with extropy, i.e. with reversed time signature, can be seen trivially by comparing the emergence of capitalism in Northern Italy around 1500, when the conceptual distance between capitalism and technology was much greater and the concept of AI did not even exist, with today, where tech startups have difficulty getting funding if they are not working on AI.
The final point of identity is that capitalism and AI are retrochronically causal, meaning both have attractors in the future that influence current behaviors, "tomorrow is already on sale".
>Within capitalist futures markets, the non-actual has effective currency. It is not an "imaginary" but an integral part of the virtual body of capital, an operationalized realization of the future.
Capital (and thus Intelligence) tends towards its own autonomy (a concept I believe the Marxist framework pre-empts, with its vision of capital excluding the worker in favor of its own reproduction), and we can see this in the rise of B2B business models, where consumer and consumed are both corporate, non-human entities, merely mediated by some humans... for now.
I find this framework of a slowly emerging, not easily recognizable intelligence embedded in the world appealing—much more so than the common impression of AI as humanoid bots. While I don't discount AIs having some "humanness" or human-like characteristics like a self, I am skeptical of the way most people talk about it.
This brings me to my questions: Where might one diverge or disagree with Mr. Land on this, and what do you think can be improved on his framework? What does he miss ? Where is he most right on the money ?
referenced by: >>3367
I've finished readin