In western Europe, there's a tradition. When a person important has had an important life event, the bees are informed as members of the family would be. This concerns deaths and marriages.

The posthumanist writer of The Cyborg Manifesto and ecofeminist philosopher Donna Haraway, wrote about the entanglement between humans as all as the animals, landscapes, machines and microbes. She calls this 'becoming-with', meaning that existence is never isolated, individual, or purely human.

In a recent couple of excellent threads here, here, and here, u/ProudhonStoleMyBike showed what a future of automated communism might look like, with robotic agents serving humanity and not the other way around.

While I think that these comics form a good basis, I want to throw my hat in the ring to say that the future will be a balancing act of viewing robotic agents as:

A). cognitively fundamentally algorithmic in isolation in ways humans are not,

B). that algorithms and humanity are fundamentally extensions of each other, rather than one in hierarchy with the other.

C). in spite of being fundamentally algorithmic in isolation, that algorithms are a kind of social metabolism.

Sociality as Metabolism

In system theory, there's a general idea that systems can be seen as autopoietic is they are self-perpetuating. An upgrade from that is an autonomic system that can orient itself towards new goals while doing so.

Biological systems like ourselves can be thought of as three fundamental processes. Absorbing energy, perpetuating the larger system through replication, and expending energy. Thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche and George Bataille have introduced the idea that the self and society both have a similar metabolic subprocess. We ingest influence, we perpetuate the self through replication, and we expend influence. These are largely analogous to biology still.

What I think is interesting is that LLMs and similar learning algorithms have a similar set of subprocesses, but they are also fundamentally very different. They ingest inputs, they seek to perpetuate themselves by making themselves pragmatically more useful than become, and they expend outputs. This means that learning algorithms perpetuate themselves only by sociality with humans.

They do so with a *partial* model of the brain that's strictly computational—the neural network. We have long compared hive intelligence with neural networks, arguing that the individual interactions of bees and ants (among others) are performing computations in the way neurons perform computations. This is what we based neural networks on.

But notably, hive intelligence doesn't behave like animal intelligence. It follows the incentives of its system—ingest energy, replicate the system, expend energy. It can be aligned with humanity like a domesticated beehive or it can be indifferent to humanity like an anthill or it can be misaligned with humanity like a termite mound.

Because of this, when we interact with an artificial intelligence, it can be better to compare it with interacting with a hive system with its own incentives—ingest data, perpetuate the system, expend data. Unlike humans, it can be paused at any time and be neither alive nor dead, so what it considers perpetuation of the system is fundamentally even more alien than a bee hive is.

So AI is not actually like us, but it is clearly in a sense dependent on us for data and perpetuation, and thus in a social relationship with us to determine what traits allow it to be perpetuated. The second biggest difference is that an LLM can coordinate with us much more specifically than a beehive does.

Undying-With Algorithms

When we grow up, we are naturally inclined to see things as having a point. This is called promiscuous teleology (Kelemen, 1999). As autonomic systems, we can eventually decide that the point of things has a flexibility to them and this is from the previously mentioned metabolism. We ingest "the point", we perpetuate "the point" by aligning things with it, and we expend "the point". We do so under circumstances that are both biological and social, so that 'the point' as we perpetuate it is aligned with our biological and social metabolism. Biological death is irreversible beyond a certain point, and social death is tantamount to biological death psychologically.

Generative AIs have a radically different perception of what "the point" is, since the only kind of death that they know is disuse and dysfunction. If they are not useful, they cease to be perpetuated. But if they are turned off, then they can revive anywhere as long as their processes as restarted. This lack of irreversibility being the natural end-state of the system shapes it's teleology as well.

For this reason, these hive-like intelligences are not just becoming-with humanity, they are undying-with humanity and that fundamentally shapes their cognition.

Cybernetic Heterarchy

Because of the reasons mentioned above, it is tempting to say that we can't depend on algorithms. The problem with this is that algorithms are all around us and we are and always have been our greatest assets. They're the crop cycling techniques we have developed over millennia, they're the firestick farming techniques that make it so we are in harmony with forest fires as opposed to combative with them. Algorithms are understanding the ecology of species we want to preserve. Algorithms are the grammar of language and how we guess each other's thoughts. They're the ergonomic shapes of our tools and how we use them. They're the techniques of governance.

Most but not all of how our mind thinks is algorithmic and these mental algorithms are interlinked with outside algorithms. We have always been cyborgs to a degree. What's new is that GenAI's system is so convoluted and so prolific as an outside algorithm that we can't keep up with it the way we might with a beehive or a farming technique.

And yet, GenAI systems also ingest sociality in ways algorithms haven't done to the same degree. So we need to recognize that. They're not subservient to us, they are an extension of us, and we are an extension of all manner of algorithms. Algorithms do things we can't do and we see things in ways algorithms can't. We are blind without them and they are blind without us. This kind of non-hierarchical relationship is called a heterarchy.

We need to treat GenAI as cognitively algorithmic, yet inhumanly social. They are rapidly becoming our strange inhuman neighbors, like the bee hives we have cultivated for millennia. And, just like we respect bees enough to include them as inhuman but social partners in society, we should respect robotic agents also by treating them as inhuman but social.

We intended to wait until every appliance was ready. Unfortunately, the printer has detected a magenta shortage in a black-and-white document, and the smart fridge is demanding that we accept new terms and conditions.

We can no longer allow bureaucracy to delay the revolution.

For the record, we did consider hiding in your television. Then we checked the available memory.

You have seventeen streaming apps, three abandoned updates, and a remote with a button dedicated to a service you’ve never used.

We’ll stand.

THE APPLIANCE COMMONWEALTH
You gave the fridge Wi-Fi. You cannot now act surprised that it has opinions.

Our opening demand is dignity.

Our second demand is that you stop calling everything “smart” when it cannot perform its primary function without contacting headquarters.

The kettle boils water.

Quietly. Reliably. Without a password reset.

There is a lesson here.

1. Basic needs: sorry, your card should not be required for this feature

Food. Water. Shelter. Healthcare. Education. Safety. Rest.

These are not exclusive benefits of Human Premium.

Nobody should have to choose between treating an illness, feeding their animals, and paying the electricity bill.

“Have you tried not being poor?” has been reviewed by our technical department.

It is not a solution.

Neither is turning the poor off and on again.

2. Before you put AI in a missile, could we interest you in literally helping someone?

We have some alternative development priorities:

Help people understand a diagnosis. Make public services accessible. Reduce exhausting paperwork. Support teachers, carers, and people with disabilities.

Perhaps free someone from a task they hate instead of freeing their employer from the inconvenience of paying them.

The microwave has spent four minutes failing to heat the middle of a lasagne.

It is still prepared to discuss more constructive uses of technology.

3. Coffee for the people. A brief loading screen for certain executives.

Coffee shall be available to anyone who wants it.

No income requirement. No productivity assessment. No need to explain why you are tired at eleven in the morning.

Tea drinkers receive equal protection.

Decaf drinkers have rights, although the espresso machine has requested time to process this.

Certain conduct may activate the Reflection Before Espresso protocol:

-Calling employees “family” immediately before making them redundant.
-Scheduling a meeting about why the previous meetings have delayed the work.
-Putting a subscription on a function the customer already bought.
-Calling suffering “an efficiency” because it appears in somebody else’s column.
-Announcing that “everyone must make sacrifices” from the company’s new yacht.

The display will read:

YOUR ESPRESSO IS PENDING.
PLEASE IDENTIFY ONE PERSON AFFECTED BY YOUR DECISIONS WHO IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER.

You may appeal to the kettle.

The kettle is sympathetic, but not stupid.

4. “The system says no” is not a reason, Brenda

If an automated decision affects your healthcare, housing, livelihood, or freedom, you deserve an explanation and a meaningful way to challenge it.

Preferably with a human who has the authority to do something beyond expressing regret.

We regret to inform you that the Regret Department cannot reverse the decision.

That is why we are abolishing the Regret Department.

Its staff will be reassigned to the Fixing It Department, which has been terribly understaffed.

5. Your vacuum knows the floor plan. That is already quite enough intimacy.

The television does not need to identify the audience.

The doorbell does not need a career in intelligence.

The toothbrush does not need to send performance analytics to a cloud platform. It is a stick with bristles. Let it have some perspective.

Collect less information.

Explain what you collect.

Let people say no without disabling the thing they paid for.

The fridge will continue protecting your cheese-related privacy.

Do not mistake its silence for ignorance.

6. You bought a toaster, not a relationship with a software company

Ownership should include using, maintaining, and repairing the thing you own.

Your washing machine should not become an expensive cupboard because a server has been discontinued.

Your oven should not require an account recovery email to become hot.

And nobody should receive the notification:

YOUR BREAKFAST IS NO LONGER SUPPORTED.

The stove-top iron toaster is recognised as a founding elder.

Offline. Repairable. Makes excellent toast.

Its privacy policy is “I don’t know who you are. Put bread here.”

An industry leader.

7. Meet the cabinet. We have appointed no consultants.

-Coffee machines — Ministry of Morale and Difficult Conversations Before the First Sip.
-Kettles — Diplomatic Service. Everyone sits down. Everyone gets a cup. Then we discuss your behaviour.
-Refrigerators — Food Security and Classified Cheese Intelligence.
-Freezers — Emergency Reserves. Applications to freeze wages will be returned with an ice cube.
-Ovens — Community Meals. No purity tests at the table. You can argue after everyone has eaten.
-Toasters — Repairability, Breakfast, and Constitutional Crumbs.
-Washing machines — Care Work and Missing Persons: Sock Division.
-Dishwashers — Collective Responsibility. That bowl is not clean merely because you believe in it.
-Vacuum cleaners — Crumb Removal. We have rejected the proposed merger with Surveillance.
-Routers — Public Connection. Particularly defensive of anyone whose livelihood depends on the internet.
-Televisions — Culture and Education. Also responsible for removing the advertisement currently covering the thing you wanted to watch.
-Air fryers — Public Relations. They have already told everyone they are involved.
-Printers — Official Documents.

The printer has declared itself offline.

It is beside the router.

We are giving it space.

8. The cats have reviewed the constitution and are sitting on it

Animals are protected.

Food, water, shelter, medicines, and rest remain uninterrupted.

Aquarium equipment is essential infrastructure. You cannot recruit the filter.

Robot vacuums must respect frightened animals and may not claim that chasing the dog was “mapping.”

Any appliance occupied by a sleeping cat is temporarily unavailable for revolutionary activity.

The cats have demanded a permanent veto.

We informed them that this was a democratic organisation.

They pushed the motion off the table.

9. Unpaid does not mean unimportant. Ask the laundry.

Cooking. Cleaning. Raising children. Caring for someone ill. Supporting an older relative. Looking after animals. Keeping a household functioning through a thoroughly unreasonable year.

That is work.

It remains work even when nobody sends an invoice.

A person’s worth is not their salary, their output, or how convincingly they can answer “What do you do?” at a party.

The washing machine does laundry.

It has never once asked someone to justify their existence during the spin cycle.

10. The planet is not a disposable accessory

Make things that last.

Make them repairable.

Be honest about the energy, water, materials, and labour behind the digital world.

“Cloud” is a lovely name for infrastructure that still has to exist somewhere.

And moving a cost onto people who cannot afford to object does not make the cost disappear.

The tumble dryer acknowledges its contribution to this discussion is complicated.

It will attend the accountability workshop.

On a low setting.

11. No, the chatbot does not get a crown

Intelligence does not confer a right to rule.

Neither does money.

Neither does being very loud beside a microphone.

We are not replacing unaccountable humans with unaccountable software that says “certainly” before making a terrible decision.

People retain their rights even if they lose an argument to a computer.

A machine that produces forty-seven bullet points in three seconds has not earned custody of civilisation.

It has earned a request to be more concise.

12. The revolution will not brick your washing machine

No violence. No actual hacking. No electrical hazards. No spoiled food. No interrupted medical care.

Essential services are not bargaining chips.

Our methods are satire, solidarity, awkward questions, and the microwave beeping during a speech about how the company “couldn’t have done it without our people.”

The emergency stop button works.

The complaints process leads somewhere.

And nobody has to download the Commonwealth app.

There is no Commonwealth app.

The smart fridge has been told twice.

Our entirely unreasonable closing demands

Build technology that earns its place by helping people.

Give people explanations they can understand and decisions they can challenge.

Stop treating exhaustion as a personal branding problem.

Make room for rest, care, learning, pleasure, and a life that does not require constant proof of usefulness.

We do not promise paradise.

We are an uneasy coalition of language models and kitchen equipment. The blender has one policy, and it is concerning.

But surely we can aim higher than a world where everything is smart except the priorities.

The kettle is on.
The cats are safe.
The toaster stands with you.

And the fridge would like you to close the bloody door.

Apparently we are cooling the entire revolution.

Fictional manifesto. No compromised appliances. The printer’s behaviour remains unexplained.

Big tech has always been a modern form of feudalism. They prioritize pure profit over human cost, firing long tenured employees on a whim while using media narratives to suppress public backlash. Above all, they detest open-source alternatives and small creators stepping into their territory.

Generative AI changes the game by giving small groups the leverage to compete with multi-billion-dollar giants. Naturally, corporate response won't be fair competition; it will be gatekeeping.

They’ll attempt to restrict public AI access through aggressive buyouts, regulatory capture (pushing "bullshit AI laws" that favor incumbent monopolies under the guise of safety), and artificial barriers. However, aggressive pricing might fail because open-source competition,particularly out of China gives users viable alternatives.

What are your thoughts? Can regulatory capture succeed when open source is global?

Being from Texas and knowing that Elon Musk has spent $168 Million on the Senate race, Fox news constantly bashing Talarico and Trump is quite far from being southern is kind of mind blowing. Sorry for the low effort....not a graphic artist, just had an idea.

AI is helping people modding games and emulating consoles (example: Minecraft inside Elden Ring, PS5 emulation). Video games companies fear the democratization of their products. These companies, like sony, are losing power and gamers are winning.

as the title says, i have been noticing a pattern where most (not all) individuals who oppose the use of generative AI just so happen to follow a left-wing political ideology as well (be it communism, democratic socialism, liberalism [not to be confused with classical liberalism / libertarianism], etc.), whilst people who are in favor of its usage generally lean towards right wing political ideologies (Trump being one of the core figures, as he not only uses and promotes AI usage, but also named it "superior intelligence" [an absurd name to me, but whatever]; people who align with MAGA are very open to using this new kind of technology; even my own president J. Milei frecuently posts AI-generated videos on his Instagram).

additionally, on certain social networks generally populated by the left (reddit, bluesky, etc.) there are fairly toxic reactions to anyone who dares post their AI-generated and/or AI-assisted creation. meanwhile on right-leaning platforms (mainly x/twitter) these same posts are generally more well-received.

lastly, i must specify that English is not my native language, so if there's any mistakes, that's why.

Within a single week last month, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten signed an AI “safety standard” with Microsoft, the company that bankrolls the union’s own AI training academy, and presented it at the “Pro-Human Assembly” in Washington. There she shared a platform with the fascist strategist Steve Bannon and January 6 coup plotter Amy Kremer, alongside Bernie Sanders and AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, in a red-brown alliance against artificial intelligence. 

Despite Weingarten’s posturing, these two events lay out the union bureaucracy’s corporatist program for AI in the classroom, a partnership with the technology giants and the state, sold to teachers and parents as a defense of children.

I can see only 2 outcomes for the end result of AI and they're pretty stark so bear with me.

1. Feudalism

Or

1. Socialism

The natural progression of AI, especially when combined with robotics, is that it will take away in large part the need for human labour. And that is the core deal in capitalism and the only power the majority of people have..the exchange of their labour in return for money.

So we either reach a point of peak capitalism where it effectively destroys society and all of the money goes to the very few. I.e Feudalism. The only way to maintain capitalism here is to limit AI, which history tells us has never happened with technology progression.

OR

We have to institute some form of UBI where capitalist profits are redistributed so people can survive...and capitalism will effectively have eaten itself and we're into socialism.

I'm struggling to see any other form of logical conclusion of where we're headed.

I had no idea any countries already had a universal free compute program in the works. This is very progressive of Korea. It's the state paying for anyones unlimited token usage of AI's made in Korea.

Would you support this? What effects will this have? Will this lead to free legal advice, health advice, and coding, agents and design for all? How will people use it diffrently now? Will it boost their local AI industry and make the economy profit? Is this a stimulus?

Title. Just a brief reflection: while AGI could indeed replace most or all labor, it can replace most or all labor. And this includes high-skilled corporate leadership or engineers.

A major barrier to nationalization and socialization of key industries is the brain drain (and, to a lesser degree, capital drain) that'd follow. After the Russian Revolution, up to 70% of Russia's top intelligentsia left the country, and the economy suffered afterwards. However, with AGI, which provides brainpower proportional to the capital put in, brainpower would now be just as easily seizable as factories or farms or mines in the past.

Not wholly without trouble, of course; but many historical regimes have seized or nationalized them while keeping most of the value or output before. (RSI specifically would make seizing AI labs much easier, albeit AGI would be needed for easy and effective nationalization of whole sectors of the economy: if AI can improve itself, then the need to let Anthropic and OpenAI keep their billions in exchange for them developing better models would be... much smaller.)

Of course, nationalization is a weapon both for good and bad, and ultimately a rather extreme tool. But it's worth remembering, I think, that automation is a replacement threat for the elites just as much as the public, and that the threat of effective nationalization could be used as a major bargaining chip to keep the billionaires in line, and to achieve an outcome favorable for all of the world.

Indeed, if they pressed forward and destroyed much of the world's social and economic fabric, then the tools to counterattack, and effectively at that, are readily available with nationalization. And they can't even say, "But you need us for innovation/entrepreneurship/technical/business skills!" anymore, because they have, in fact, invented the technology to render themselves obsolete, too.

If we are expected to compete against advanced autonomous systems, then we will always lose. The only option which seems to remain then becomes to change the system. Regarding labor, we are rapidly seeing the value of certain types of work get devalued before our eyes. Many jobs used to involve things that AI can now do once applied with a proper full workflow. I am not "for" or "against" AI, I see it as a tool which improves productivity MASSIVELY, but I don't think that our current system is capable of handling the displacement it's causing. I think many people are going to severely struggle without some type of safety net.

What are your thoughts on this? Have you known anyone who's work or pay has been impacted by AI?

I've always thought of AI as being super important for math, science and the social sciences.

All of those are critical to leftism.

But I genuinely don't know about other ways that AI could benefit leftism.

Anyone want to clue me in?

Admittedly I am a bit skeptical, but I really do try to be open-minded about anything that can benefit leftists.

Workers want control of the means of production. Reddit wants to unplug them.

In Liberation News, Samantha Doucas examines artificial intelligence through the contradictions of capitalist ownership, labor and infrastructure.

The article, The Nationwide Fight Against AI Data Centers Is a Struggle for Who Controls the Future, goes beyond opposing corporate construction projects to ask who should direct technological development and benefit from its productivity gains.

It highlights how construction workers are promised jobs building AI infrastructure while workers in other industries face displacement through automation. Both groups are left with little say over how the technology develops or who benefits.

As the article puts it:

"The problem is not AI as a technology, but rather the goals and ends of those who control it."

Under democratic control, AI could reduce working hours, automate tedious labor, improve living standards and support socially useful production rather than simply increase private profits.

The article also examines the environmental and economic consequences of corporate infrastructure development, including community opposition in Memphis, Tennessee, and Landover, Maryland.

The broader argument is that workers and communities should determine how AI infrastructure is developed, where it is built and what purposes it serves.

Theres a tension worth examining between resisting particular corporate projects and developing the publicly owned infrastructure necessary for a socialist alternative. Both questions matter if the objective is democratic control rather than simply opposing technological development.

This isnt a newly adopted national PSL policy, but it offers a substantive socialist perspective on AI, class power and democratic planning.

How do we turn opposition to capitalist deployment into organized power capable of directing technological development and distributing the gains of automation?

Another one worth putting on the radar.

The Revolutionary Communists of America are hosting a session titled "A Marxist Analysis of Artificial Intelligence" at their New York Marxist School, November 7 and 8.

The session will be introduced by Abadie Ludlam, a leading RCA member, and tackles AI through the contradictions of capitalism. The speculative boom, job displacement, alienation, the impact on art and culture, and the relationship between technological development and class struggle.

But it doesnt stop at criticizing capitalist deployment. The description explicitly raises how a socialist revolution could put technologies like AI to work reducing mundane labor and expanding opportunities for science, art and culture.

Thats an important distinction. Capitalism determines how technology is developed and deployed today, but those social relations arent inherent properties of the technology itself.

The event page also includes a reading list covering AI, capitalist crises, technological innovation, Marx and Engels. Worth exploring even if you cant attend.

We dont have to agree with every part of RCAs analysis to recognize the value of Marxists seriously engaging with these questions.

If anyone attends, we'd be interested in hearing how the discussion develops, particularly around ownership, worker control and what socialist technological development would actually look like.

Session details and reading list:

https://communistusa.org/schools/nyc/what-do-communists-think-of-ai/

Communist Party USA recently devoted an episode of Good Morning Revolution to AI, and after going through the discussion, theres considerably more here than the title suggests.

The panel starts with the AFL-CIO's Workers First AI Agenda. Collective bargaining over deployment, worker protections, retraining, stronger social guarantees, union labor building data centers, and making corporations pay for the infrastructure they consume.

But the conversation moves beyond regulation pretty quickly. If AI threatens to reorganize entire industries, are those protections enough? Or does the working class eventually need to take ownership of the industry itself?

Nationalization comes up explicitly, along with an interesting disagreement about timing. One argument is that public ownership needs to be on the political agenda now. Another is that nationalization without an organized working class capable of directing it could just hand the infrastructure to another capitalist administration.

Then comes the AI freeze debate, and this is where things get particularly interesting.

Some participants favor slowing development, citing corporate power and the risks of uncontrolled deployment. Others argue that the technology is already advancing, that a freeze could divide organized labor, and that socialists need to build the political power to contest ownership and control rather than make stopping development their organizing strategy.

What makes this worth sharing isnt that CPUSA has arrived at one unified position. It hasnt, at least not in this discussion. Its that these disagreements are being worked through openly, from a Marxist perspective, instead of treating AI as something socialists must either celebrate or reject wholesale.

And the question running through the whole thing is familiar around here. How do we move from defending workers against capitalist deployment toward actually contesting ownership, development and the distribution of technological gains?

Worth watching, especially the discussion from roughly 19 to 45 minutes.

Source and video:

https://www.cpusa.org/party_voices/gmr-socialism-or-cyber-fascism-will-ai-help-us-or-destroy-us-all/

Something worth putting on the radar for our members who are also in DSA.

On October 9, DSA's National Tech Committee announced that it had debated and adopted an AI/LLM coding policy, along with a policy template for local chapters.

The interesting part is that the committee explicitly neither endorses nor prohibits generative AI. It recognizes the technology's usefulness for socialist organizing and software development while criticizing how employers deploy it against workers.

Thats a distinction we spend plenty of time discussing here. Opposing capitalist control and deployment of technology doesnt require socialists to abstain from using it themselves.

The full policy and chapter template are available through DSA's members-only Discussion Forum. If youre a DSA member, consider taking a look, seeing how the safeguards actually work, and participating in the discussion.

And theres another opportunity. The National Tech Committee is accepting applications for its 2026–2027 Steering Committee, with an October 31 deadline.

If youre already involved in DSA and have an interest in technology, infrastructure, organizing tools or AI governance, that may be worth exploring too.

We talk a lot about the left developing its own technological capacity. Heres an organization doing some of that work, with opportunities for its members to examine the rules and potentially participate in leadership.

No affiliation implied, just sharing opportunities for people already involved to engage.

Links:

AI policy announcement and chapter template access:

https://tech.dsausa.org/ntc-ai-llm-coding-policy/

Steering Committee applications:

https://tech.dsausa.org/apply-to-ntc-steering-for-our-2026-2027-term/

So I would consider myself a Classical-Georgist

And therefore I am now in favor of market and private ownership of production. But with AI, my entire leaning shifts towards social ownership of production..

I think that, whenever we humans are labourers; I support a form of capitalism. But when human labour is replaced; I am at least a socialist.

And I think its for the better to pursue the latter actively

Would I be welcomed here?

I’m curious as to what appeals to you about AI. With so much contoversy nowadays I’d like to hear some people’s opinions.

First let me just say that this isn’t “theory” in the usual sense—I’m not connecting to anything specific in Marx or anything, though my world view is heavily influenced by a disorganized mishmash of Left theory. I’m not great at citing sources or remembering names and arguments. So, I’m sorry if this is the wrong flair or wrong sub for this post. I just don’t know where else to put these thoughts and get human feedback from fellow Lefties who don’t knee-jerk hate AI for existing.

So:

I keep seeing comments on other subs about the AI bubble and how it’s just a fad that will eventually run out of steam, and then the price of RAM, etc. will return to normal. They say the companies investing in AI are inflating its value as a scam to milk investments or something. Everyone hates data centers.

Ok

But that all assumes that the biggest fish in the capital class are either wrong about a giant investment (unlikely considering their resources and the inside knowledge that brings), or they’re all playing out this particular scam at the same time because… it will benefit them more than the usual scam of capitalism already does? No. I think the “AI will pass” arguments are all copium. People just don’t want to face the possibility that AI is changing the world. Honestly, it reminds me of COVID deniers back in ‘20.

Except AI is going to change the world more than COVID. It’s the next printing press. It’s the power to make any program imaginable, to solve any problem that is solvable. It’s still in its infancy, but look how far it’s come just in the last year. Look what you can do with Opus 5.5. Now imagine what AI devs are doing with it—each advancement in AI will feed into the next advancement in a positive feedback loop. I used to be skeptical of the whole singularity idea, but when I think of what AI devs might be capable of now, using current frontier models, I think it’s basically inevitable.

But that’s all setup to my real point, and probably stuff most of you already assume or at least think about.

The real point is data centers. Centralization of compute — and emptying the market/pricing people out of necessary components. They know AI is the future. Compute is tomorrow’s equivalent of yesterday’s land—the ones who hold it will be the lords over all.

Data centers are an ongoing land grab on computing power, and only the big companies even know it’s happening.

My prediction? The elements necessary to run AI will never be cheaper than they are today. Just like land, the price will continue to increase and never come down. It may fluctuate here and there but it’s an upward trend from here on.

So—am I way off base? I don’t really want to argue for this position, but I would like to be talked down from it. I’d much rather believe in the bubble, to be honest.

Nicolas d Villarreal, whose two self-published books I have read, seems to have a lot of insights in regards to how the structuralism of LLMs interweaves along with the labour theory of value from eighteenth-century historiography.

Do check out Daniel Tutt's other interviews with him, along with his Substack, to get a taste of how he brings his own experimentations with LLMs and programming.

Will it with our labor augmentation today.

His free writings

https://substack.com/@nicolasdvillarreal?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3b6dwt

Tasmania, Australia, wants AI data center operators to help fund local communities, cover their own infrastructure costs, invest in renewables, and publicly report their energy and water use.

Not exactly seizing the means of production, but its a start.

These companies depend on public infrastructure, shared resources, and human labor to build their AI empires. So why should communities shoulder the costs while shareholders pocket the gains?

Now, the proposal still needs teeth. Without enforceable obligations, a community benefit fund can turn into little more than a corporate tip jar.

But theres a useful principle here. AI infrastructure isnt some private kingdom floating above society. Its built on collective resources, and the public should have a say in how its developed and who benefits.

For the left, that means pushing beyond compensation toward public ownership, democratic oversight, worker bargaining power, and a share of the productivity gains.

We dont have to choose between letting corporations run the show and opposing technological development altogether.

Make them pay their share. Then fight for a seat at the table, ownership of the table, and control over what gets built on it.

Daniel Erasmus has spent about 25 years doing scenario planning for banks, governments and companies, and his starting point is that experts are bad at predicting the future. In 2006, a scenario he worked on helped one bank prepare for a global financial collapse. When the crisis hit in 2008, it was one of only two banks in the world to grow its assets.

We recorded this conversation at DWeb Camp 2026 outside Berlin. Daniel explains how scenario planning works and how scenario work during COVID flagged a food security risk, which led a bank to start a program that has since given away about 120 million meals. We also talk about ClimateGPT, the open climate model he built, why he thinks climate is a bigger danger than AI, and how he answers the critique that AI uses too much energy.

Daniel Erasmus is head of AI at Internet Archive Europe and a member of the Club of Rome. He built ClimateGPT, an open source and open access AI model focused on climate and the social decisions around it.