Sociopath Community

You're confusing the economic system under which something developed with the conditions necessary for its existence. Saying AI developed under capitalism doesn't establish that capitalism is necessary for AI.

Nobody claimed that labor, materials, or energy are free. Those are physical and organizational requirements, not capitalist requirements. Workers can be compensated without private ownership of the means of production.

Public institutions have funded AI research and constructed advanced computing infrastructure. Corporations aren't the only entities capable of organizing labor and resources.

Yes, the AI I currently use is corporate. That establishes who owns the service, not that the technology is inherently dependent on capitalism.

Your argument amounts to saying that because something hasn't happened under a particular alternative, it cannot happen. That's not evidence of impossibility. You're asserting necessity based on historical circumstance.

The "you're confusing" strategy is the same as covering your ears and screaming.

The workers don't work for you, nor do you pay them.

The Ai you borrow is a byproduct of capitalism. Doesn't belong to you.

When the world can't live without it. There will be no free plan.

You're still confusing ownership with production and necessity. I never claimed the workers work for me, that I personally pay their wages, or that I own the AI. None of those points addresses my argument.

AI being developed under capitalism does not establish that capitalism is necessary for its development. Workers produce and maintain the technology, while corporations finance and control its infrastructure. Those functions require resources and labor, not necessarily private capitalist ownership.

And your prediction that corporations will eventually eliminate free access only reinforces my point about dependence on private ownership. If a technology becomes indispensable, its owners can exploit that dependence by restricting access and extracting payment.

You're describing how AI currently operates under capitalism, not demonstrating why it could only operate under capitalism.

As mentioned, you cannot explain a plan to build a data center without Capitalism.

I don't argue what can be done without capitalism. My claim is it's available because of Capitalism. 

Ai can't be done and delivered at scale for free. Not happening on this planet. 

You're conflating financing productive activity with the necessity of capitalist ownership. AI requires workers, resources, and infrastructure, not passive owners extracting profits from their labor. The fact that capitalists currently control investment doesn't mean their ownership is necessary for production. You're confusing an existing economic arrangement with a productive necessity.

No one will labour for free.

No one will create a workforce, and build an Ai you can use, for free. 

No one will get out of bed for free. 

That's the world. 

If you think a bunch of folks will simply get together, and manage to do this for nothing you're deluded. 

Ai is a byproduct of Capitalism. 

Every Ai knows this. 

Argue how it can be done without Capitalism all you want, and sure it can, in a world without a financial system or something to motivate people to contribute. 

On Planet Earth, the Ai doesn't belong to you, and it can be taken away. 

If you've become too codependent on Ai, it's your fault. The rich can pull the plug at any given time. Too many freeloaders and their gone.  

You're still conflating compensation for labor with capitalist ownership. Nobody argued that workers should work for free or that AI requires no resources. Workers can be compensated without a private ownership class extracting profits from their labor.

Capitalism isn't synonymous with money, financial systems, or economic incentives. The fact that AI currently operates under capitalism doesn't establish that capitalism is necessary for its production.

It's ironic that you're so concerned about people expecting something for free when you defend a system where owners can receive profits from the labor of others without performing that labor themselves. Why should passive ownership entitle someone to the surplus generated by productive workers? You're defending the very dependency and extraction you're supposedly criticizing.

lol I don't defend it. 

Every material good you own is a byproduct of capitalism. That's just the truth. 

Sure I don't hate it. I'm totally fine with Capitalism. 

I don't believe in equality of outcome. I don't believe a janitor should be paid as much as an engineer.  

Spatial Mind said: 

lol I don't defend it. 

Every material good you own is a byproduct of capitalism. That's just the truth. 

Sure I don't hate it. I'm totally fine with Capitalism. 

I don't believe in equality of outcome. I don't believe a janitor should be paid as much as an engineer.  

Material goods are products of labor and resources, not capitalism itself. You're confusing the economic system that controls production with the productive activity itself.

Nobody argued for equality of outcome. Becoming a high-earning engineer can depend on privileges such as family wealth, education, and access to opportunities. Income isn't necessarily proportional to individual merit or productivity.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

lol I don't defend it. 

Every material good you own is a byproduct of capitalism. That's just the truth. 

Sure I don't hate it. I'm totally fine with Capitalism. 

I don't believe in equality of outcome. I don't believe a janitor should be paid as much as an engineer.  

Material goods are products of labor and resources, not capitalism itself. You're confusing the economic system that controls production with the productive activity itself.

"In a global market economy, strictly speaking nothing can be completely purchased outside of capitalism, because money, supply chains, and production methods are embedded within the dominant commercial framework.

However, you can shift away from traditional for-profit corporate exchange toward non-monetary acquisition, direct labor/gifting, and alternative solidarity structures"

Nobody argued for equality of outcome. Becoming a high-earning engineer can depend on privileges such as family wealth, education, and access to opportunities. Income isn't necessarily proportional to individual merit or productivity.

People do argue for that actually, it's one of Kamala's policies. 

I think it's okay to own and operate a business. It's fine to create jobs and steer the direction of one's own company using capitalist frameworks. 

It functions well, and it brings forth mass production of goods we think are actually good.

Life made easy.