I am very pro-AI (although I do think we need to have a culture of caution) but this is another red-alert for democracy. People should be terrified if the president is able to make you into a state enemy just because you said you are against some technology.
Interesting! I would personally argue that AI as a political project is precisely very authoritarian. I recommend reading Al Khatib's definition to get an unorthodox perspective on the matter: <a href="https://ali-alkhatib.com/blog/defining-ai" rel="nofollow">https://ali-alkhatib.com/blog/defining-ai
>I think we should shed the idea that AI is a technological artifact with political features and recognize it as a political artifact through and through.
I mean it is a technology. Politicians may go on about it but didn't create it.
Some technology carry politics as part of their essence. A knife or a hammer is a relatively neutral technology. An atomic bomb on the other hand is a political project in itself and has no charitable interpretation (game theory / mutually assured destruction aside).
I think AI falls into the second category. Even the most optimistic interpretations of AI, such as in Asimov, are very totalitarian. They're only positive because AI is automating away human work to create more resource/financial equality between people. In our real world though, AI is just as totalitarian, but there's not a single glimmer of hope that it will be used to better share resources. That sounds more political than technical.
The atomic bomb was created by a government effort with Manhattan Project. AI not so.
I guess you could argue AI is more a mathematical discovery than a technology. I mean the recent boom has been driven by the discovery that if you stick the internet into the transformers algorithm you get intelligent sounding results which is true regardless of the hardware involved.
I don't agree with the resource pessimism - I think it'll go more <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/business/a-world-where-all-is-free-thats-elon-musks-theory-of-sustainable-abundance.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/business/a-world-where-al... though I guess time will tell on that one.
Interestingly, this article does not make a single argument why this is technically possible, but does point out that Musk and friends have no plan to make the wealth redistribution happen. The article does not quote a single researcher on extractivism, material sciences, ecology... This is religious dogma at its finest. You may be a believer, but that does not make it plausible.
On the other hand, there is an abundance of data points that ecological collapse is already happening. All scientists agree we are on a non-sustainable path. Many agree that this model's collapse is unavoidable, but the question remains: do you want to plan for a humanist degrowth making quality of life better for everyone and more sustainable? or do you want a Mad Max-like future where people fight for drinkable water?
ilaksh · · focus · HN ↗
Razengan · · focus · HN ↗
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
>I think we should shed the idea that AI is a technological artifact with political features and recognize it as a political artifact through and through.
I mean it is a technology. Politicians may go on about it but didn't create it.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
I think AI falls into the second category. Even the most optimistic interpretations of AI, such as in Asimov, are very totalitarian. They're only positive because AI is automating away human work to create more resource/financial equality between people. In our real world though, AI is just as totalitarian, but there's not a single glimmer of hope that it will be used to better share resources. That sounds more political than technical.
tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
I guess you could argue AI is more a mathematical discovery than a technology. I mean the recent boom has been driven by the discovery that if you stick the internet into the transformers algorithm you get intelligent sounding results which is true regardless of the hardware involved.
I don't agree with the resource pessimism - I think it'll go more <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/business/a-world-where-all-is-free-thats-elon-musks-theory-of-sustainable-abundance.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/business/a-world-where-al... though I guess time will tell on that one.
selfhoster1312 · · focus · HN ↗
Interestingly, this article does not make a single argument why this is technically possible, but does point out that Musk and friends have no plan to make the wealth redistribution happen. The article does not quote a single researcher on extractivism, material sciences, ecology... This is religious dogma at its finest. You may be a believer, but that does not make it plausible.
On the other hand, there is an abundance of data points that ecological collapse is already happening. All scientists agree we are on a non-sustainable path. Many agree that this model's collapse is unavoidable, but the question remains: do you want to plan for a humanist degrowth making quality of life better for everyone and more sustainable? or do you want a Mad Max-like future where people fight for drinkable water?