La Vision Marxiste de l'Intelligence Artificielle

The Marxist vision of artificial intelligence. Good morning, my friends. No one on this planet has tried to approach the question from this angle, and yet it is very important. It will reveal a lot of things to us. Let me tell you, we are in the 1700s, roughly speaking, there is a very important point that will occur in the 1700s that will condition our lives until today by convention, in the United Kingdom, roughly speaking, we have the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that will profoundly change the way humanity works, the way humanity produces, and which will subsequently cause a lot of ramifications that continue to haunt us to this day. We have a certain Adam Smith, who is the creator or founding father of modern economic theories. Foreign Smith was roughly born around the 1720s and died at the end of the 1700s. So roughly speaking, you could say he was in his 40s when the industrial Revolution arrived. And that's why we're going to find that after the Industrial Revolution, we have a huge change, this change, which will soon lead to the abolition of slavery in the mid-1800s, slavery was abolished. In the 1800s. We are roughly a century after the arrival of the Industrial Revolution and its expansion to the rest of the world. This means that it was the Industrial Revolution and not moral or ethical considerations or anything else that caused the collapse of slavery. Slavery was not abolished. Slavery collapsed because it no longer made sense in a world where there was no longer any need for humans pushing wheels, pulling weights and all that, there was no longer any need for human energy. So at that point, slavery suddenly made less sense. But at that time, in the 1000s, 1700s and early 1800s, there was a great concern for economics. We might say, well, here we have the Industrial Revolution. Our way of producing, of sharing wealth, of living day to day has changed profoundly. And in fact, at that time, new questions arose. And in response to these questions, we find people like Adam Smith, for example, a little later, we find someone who was a little younger than Adam Smith. He was born in the late 1700s and died in the early 1800s. He died young. He was in his 50s when he died. We find David Ricardo a very important man. And then from the early 1800s to the late 19th century, we find someone extremely important whose theories spread like wildfire across the world and continue to be operational in many countries to this day. This is what we call Karl Marx with his book Capital or the Critique of Political Economy. So let's go back to Adam Smith. One of the questions Mr. Smith asked himself was how to assess the value of an object. I have a commodity, a ream of paper, a roll of fabric, a jacket, a bottle of mineral water. How do we define the value of this product in the economy, in the market, in exchanges? Well, he had thought about what he called utility value. It means. Utility value, intuitively, means that the more important something is to me, the more vital it is to me, the more I am willing to pay more for it as a consumer. Intuitively, that seems interesting. There is a problem. The problem is Mr. Smith's paradox, which was that he realized that a precious stone is worth much more than a bottle of mineral water. Well, yes, I can buy a precious stone for €5,000 and a bottle of mineral water for 80 cents. What is, what is the most important thing for me? Water. Water is vital. I could die without water. So what is the paradox here? A little later, we come to David Ricardo, who introduces a concept that Mr. Smith had already begun to develop in response to this paradox. It is the amount of work that each object, each commodity, will depend, among other things on an amount of work that is put into it. And this amount of work, you can't cheat. By the way, if you look up to now, a lot of cryptocurrencies derive their value from what? They derive their value from proof of work. Because as much as we can print money, the state can cause inflation and print money. But can we print work? No, we can't. Because to do work you need time, right? A human life is limited. You can't invent time. Someone who lives 80 years, he's not going to print another 80 years. So it's limited. So every time someone works a day, he's giving away a day, giving away an irreplaceable value, okay? And unfortunately, but that's another topic, we see that we're giving away something irreplaceable. So our life, our passing years, our youth, and we're giving it away in return for what? In return for monopoly bills printed by the state and by the banks? In return for debts, in return for interest that's just generated on a computer that doesn't exist. So we're giving away something absolutely precious, something absolutely irreplaceable, to get something futile. We're literally taking Mr. Mr. Smith, Mr. Adam Smith from behind. We're really going backwards. But anyway, let's continue. So later on, the one who's really going to. Karl Marx developed the theory of value. Because Karl Marx, in his book, when you read his book Capital, very, very often quotes Smith and Ricardo, Smith and Ricardo, in certain chapters, it comes up literally on every page. So he bases himself on what they said, but he goes further. And then he also contradicts them and even criticizes them on numerous occasions. So he defines something based on another paradox of Adam Smith. Here's what Marx says. But as long as it takes four hours of work to produce a ream of paper, right? I have a paper mill, right? And then I have machines, raw materials workers and all that. And we manage to produce a ream of paper every four hours. So let's say that a ream of paper is worth four hours of work, roughly speaking. Now let's imagine that someone else opens a workshop. But because he doesn't have the right machines, he doesn't have the expertise, he doesn't have all that well, it takes him eight hours to make a ream of paper. The question is, will he be able to sell it for double the price? Is the bad craftsman, in other words, is the craftsman or the worker who is slower, who has fewer tools, who has less training, less expertise, who is behind in terms of production capacity? Is he capable? Right. Is the market going to reward him? Are we going to pay him double? Triple because he takes two or three times longer? The reality is. No, the reality is that it's not possible. Why? Because if he comes and puts down his ream of paper and wants to charge double or whatever the product is, it could be fabrics, it could be. Be a jacket, a pair of shorts, whatever. Well, he won't be able to sell it because his product is too expensive, okay? So that's what Karl Marx defined as the social time of labor. What he meant was that for each product we have for. For each commodity on the market, there is a social average to produce it. What he meant was if we take the intensity of labor that we have today, it means how long people work, how fast they work, how much effort they put in, the tools they have, the know how, the social advancement we have, how much time they rest, all that. So it's multifactorial. We take a lot of factors, we put them together, and we arrive at an average that we call the social time of labor to generate a given commodity. So assuming that now I have a chair here, I'm sitting on it, assuming that the social time to create this chair or make this chair from wood is two hours. So we can't claim more than two hours of work in it. Even if the chair takes me eight hours to make, the market won't pay me for eight hours. It'll only pay me for two hours. That's where it's going to go. So we have to fit into two hours. What are the people going to do to win in a capitalist market open to their competition, behind their competition? We need to know one thing. Competition in a Marxist vision is an ephemeral state. Because there are a lot of people who oppose competition or competition or the free market. Right. They oppose it to monopoly. He says, yes, we have a monopoly. For example, typically, let's say in socialist countries, we have monopolies, for example, it's the state monopoly, like water. It's a state monopoly. On the other hand, in a liberal country, Right. Well, we're going to open up. Water is competitive, and there will be a lot of companies fighting to supply water. In reality, this is temporary. Why? Because the goal of competition is to crush the other, so it is to dominate the market and therefore end up with a monopoly. So in reality, once you have a monopoly, what do you do? Well, you increase prices.

Okay? And that's what happens very, very often. We see it. We saw it, for example, in the United Kingdom, where water companies were sold. And, well, at the beginning there were a multitude of small companies. Then many collapsed, went bankrupt, and then they were bought out by others. And finally, there is one large company per region, typically owned by foreign investment funds. It's been 30 or 40 years since a single water reservoir or a single reservoir. We lose billions of liters of water per day because the pipes and everything are damaged. We go to the state to obtain subsidies and we get them. We put the company into debt, we distribute huge bonuses, and we increase prices without providing any support. There you have it. It's a classic. And the day the company collapses, well, the public will buy it. So the state will buy it, and then it will bleed it dry in the classic, classic way. We will privatize the profits and then we will mutualize the losses. Of course, then once it is assigned, we will resell it. So this is just a parenthetical passage to tell you about this story of this story of monopoly and competition, which is completely false in reality. So I will continue. I was saying that the goal of each person who produces is to try to lower the social value of work by a factor of 100. That is to say that if I am in a country where the social time to make a chair is two hours, and I manage by buying more powerful machines that do laser, laser cutting and everything, I make my chair in 30 minutes. I've saved 90 minutes of work. That means I work with fewer people, right? I need fewer workers to produce the Same thing. Or I can also make a redundancy plan and fire those who are too much. Okay, so at that point, my chair that only requires 30 minutes of work, Well, I can sell it on the market that pays two hours of work per chair. So at that point, what do I earn? I earn 90 minutes, equivalent to 90 minutes per chair. And then I make a lot of money. So the problem is I can also sell it for less than my competitors. And at that point, I put them in a very delicate situation because they say, but how does he manage to sell at this price? What's the price? So they're going to start looking at how I work, and they're going to realize that I have more powerful, faster machines. I have lasers, I have stuff. They're going to photograph my workshops. They're going to recruit someone who worked there. They're going to come and hypocritically walk around the workshop and see. So what are they going to want to do? It's going to become a question of survival for them. In terms of survival, they're going to have to adapt, which means they're going to have to use the same techniques as me to reach my average. So we have another supplier who's going to buy machines. Bam. He produces the chair in 30 minutes. Another one does the same. What's going to happen in the long term? What's going to happen in the long term is that the social average for making a chair will drop to 30 minutes, because everyone will be able to make it in 30 minutes. So the average that was two hours is going to collapse. So what are we going to see on the market? We're going to see that the chairs that used to cost, I don't know, that we bought for €180. Today we can find them for €25. So the price has collapsed. So no one wins anymore. That means the one who managed to win was the one who was ahead of the others. Right? Who could, like in the Tour de France, was the one who managed to separate from the pack and think he was ahead. But the pack always ends up catching up. The pack always ends up catching up. And so the social time of work is going to lower, creating a new bar for who will become the new challenge. That in reality, it's an economy that's always running behind. If I take the example of the Tour de France, it's an economy that's always running behind a finish line that advances as we approach it. So each time we move towards the approach line or the finish line, it moves further away and it's a never ending race. So what's going to happen is that in such an economy we're bound to collapse. Why? Because we can't win. And that's what Karl Marr's book, the Critique of Political Economy describes in volume three, the fall or the downward trend in the rate of profit. That means that no matter what you do, and that's an integral part of the capitalist economic model, which consists of always wanting to seek more profit and in reality chasing a completely imaginary line, that means no matter what situation we take, we can always try to improve our profits by offshoring, by AI, by new machines, by new methods, by, uh, crushing people, making them work more, taking away days off regularly, like they should in France, taking away public holidays, telling people, you're coming to work, aren't you? That's part of it. It's trying to. There is a certain way of moving towards this finish line that in fact does not exist. It is a mirage in the sand and it will recede even further. I could make a more detailed, more specific video with figures and all that. On this tangential fall in the rate of profit. That is truly a catastrophe for the capitalist system. It always forces us to go as far as a reset. The reset is an integral part, or the collapse is an integral part of the capitalist system. Regularly it is a system that collapses because it is not a stable system. It is not a system that is sustainable, as they say. It is a system that is intrinsically based, and that is the thesis, if you like, of capital, that it is a system that can be demonstrated to have internal contradictions that cause it to go from crisis to crisis. So the crises that we see in the past, that we have heard about, in 1929, no one was there, or in 2008, the majority, some of us were there. We remember 2008. Many people lost their jobs, lost their property, lost a lot of things. In 2008, I had a small business. It was wiped out in 2008. Why? Because it's not my small business that knows why I went to live in the United Kingdom in 2008, in your opinion? Because I had a small business that was wiped out by the crisis. In reality, it wasn't me directly, it was my clients who were wiped out by the crisis. They stopped their projects, some went under, others closed, and so on. And I found myself with one hand in front, one hand behind, as they say. So the idea is that in this pursuit we now have a new. We now have A new deal. It's what we call artificial intelligence. It's AI. So the problem with AI, with everything I've just told you so far, it is that it will lower the social cost of a certain amount of production. Taking a media article previously, for example, the social cost of writing an article was once you had all the data at hand, it took four hours to type, correct. Give it to someone who would write it in two or three hours, give it to someone else who would proofread, look for typos. All that took a human time that I estimate at four hours. But with artificial intelligence, the article will be written this time, otherwise not in four hours. This means that if you look at the revolutions that we have had in the past, before we had the typewriter and then we had to go and print the article, it was more like someone who would take some kind of support, he would take the letters one by one and place them. Then we had the computer. So the computer has lowered the production time of the article, even if it hasn't necessarily reduced the writing time. But today, with I, it's an extremely brutal reduction. It means we're going from four hours to 30 seconds. Okay? So the reduction in this social time to generate an article is too brutal for us to be able to adapt, for there to be an adaptation. So those who can't imagine, just imagine. Those who won't want to follow, imagine the media. Today I read a lot of media every day I do my press review and I see the characteristics. I see the inimitable signature of GPT Chat writing. Huh? GPT Chat. He's going to tell you something. This isn't a box. It's a box. It's a parallel. He's going to tell you it's not just a black box. It's not just a box. It's a black box. Is it between. He's going to put a rhetorical question, Just one word, Color. Or rather color, black. You see, there are a certain number of characteristics. Soft negations all the time. GPT can never write something direct. Tup will never tell you, I don't know. This rectangular sheet. He will say, this sheet is not circular, it is not square, it is not triangular. It is rectangular. And he does this practically all the time. I recognize this in big headlines today, in big media. And clearly they are generating their articles by GPT Chat and similar artificial intelligence. The problem. Imagine. Imagine someone who doesn't want to follow either for development or writing the code. Imagine, imagine the companies that don't want to Follow who say, we're going to write code by hand. It won't work because their code. Let's go back to the beginning of this video when I told you that the social time to produce. Well, it's four hours and someone produces in eight hours because he doesn't have the tools. Will the market pay him? No, the market won't pay him. It won't pay him for four hours. It won't pay him for eight hours. When we go back to the story of our code, our computer program, since more and more companies are using artificial intelligence, what's going to happen? Well, what's going to happen is that the social time spent writing or generating code will drop sharply. What's going to happen in society? First of all, companies that don't use AI, that don't know how to adapt to AI, will simply disappear because their code will be too expensive. Of course, there will always be like today we'll go, maybe, I don't know, you go to Florence or Venice. You'll always find the craftsman who will patiently handcraft you a pair of beautiful shoes or a bag. He'll sell you a pair of shoes costing €5,000. That will always exist, but it will become a rarity. It will become a boutique. Most of the code will be written by Lee. The other thing is that the Indians will suffer because outsourcing no longer makes sense. Before we needed Java, what did we do? We would fire everyone, right? We would fire Caroline, Melanie and Mike, right? Usually we would go to Bangalore and recruit a floor manager. There are companies that will help you do that when you arrive. There are sometimes American or European companies. They send a guy there, they send a director or a vp. They send him to Bangalore, he is picked up from the airport, they send him, they take him on a tour. In a three day trip, he can recruit, sign contracts, find premises, get computers, tables, phone lines, Internet, the whole thing. So as soon as he returns to Europe, to the United States or to his home, he starts firing people. He calls Caroline from human resources and says, okay, here we go, you're firing X number of people. So that's been done for a long time now. Leah. It'll be cheaper than going offshore, right? So there'll be a big hit in that regard. So I personally anticipate that at some point what's going to happen is that we'll resort less to this system of offshoring and we'll more readily have AI that will continue to produce. Secondly, a lot of people will lose their jobs. Thirdly, quite A few people will lose their jobs, of course, because the volume, the volume that is currently supported by AI will not require it in certain professions such as translation professions, writing professions, Internet development professions, and even many graphic design professions. I am also worried about Hollywood because today we are starting to have people who make short videos of 10 seconds, 5 seconds, 3 seconds. Okay, that's today. But what will we do in five years when Leah is able to generate an entire film to make a two hour film, okay, in three minutes when she will be able to create characters, even create a script, and so on and so forth? Well, the problem with all this is that the time will come when we will have films that will be generated in a single minute by boots and that will also be watched by boots. I mean, what are we going to do as humans? Because if we start seeing machines, computers that generate 1 million films per day, our city won't be enough. There isn't enough humanity to watch millions of films per day. So what are we going to do? We're going to ask some boots to go watch them. And so we'll start having millions of films that will be generated and watched by 200 billion boots. And then there you go, they'll be among themselves and we. Well, I don't know what we'll do. We'll be able to go about our business. So there's also this problem of where the human being will fit into all this. And perhaps to temper things. I would say that if we look back in time, did the somatic pilot kill the profession of pilot? No, there are still pilots. Did the arrival of Excel and computers destroy the profession of accountant? No, there are still just as many accountants. They're everywhere. Is the profession, is the tool. I'll find another example has Auto Tune, for example, Autotune, which was supposed to change the voice and all that and align it with the music and allow people who can't sing to sing. Has it killed music? There are just as many musicians and they sell billions of copies. And the music industry is a big industry. But does AI fall into the same category? We'll see. We'll see together. We'll see because it's accelerating at a speed and we'll see what it will give. Is there really a promise? Because there's a big promise now. We have to be careful. There's the reality, there's the marketing and there's the hype. Right? As I was telling you about GPT5, you look at the marketing campaign that preceded it. It's a campaign that's out of this world. It literally promised. You're talking to the Holy Trinity, literally live. The fact is that it's a disaster. It's a total flop. It's inferior to what already existed. So we shouldn't mix two things up. The reality on the ground, the real performance on the ground. And when we look at some of them, they haven't changed much over the last 24 months. We have total stagnation in the marketing hype, or the hype of people, for example, who are looking for funding for the next AI project and all that. So there's a lot of it. I think we're potentially heading towards a bubble. Okay? That means at some point we have a lot of money invested in it based on promises, on very hyped, very exaggerated stuff and all that. Very inflated until the day when the whole house collapses on our heads. And that's it. Okay? So there you have it. I wanted to share with you this vision of AI by inserting it not as if human history began two years ago, but by inserting it into the path of economic policy since the 1700s to try to understand what each time the major developments have resulted in terms of the economy and potentially what AI can do. But remember to finish, remember one thing. It's not AI that will take your job. It's someone who uses AI. So AI in your toolbox is very important to master. Absolutely. It will become a time. It's like if someone is looking for a job, for example, in an office, saying that they don't know how to use Word or Excel, who has never used it, who has had a computer, it can become a disqualifying factor very quickly. So you absolutely have to learn how to use it, to use it well, not just like Google, but to know how to do advanced prompting, exclusions, additions, adding weights, understand all the advanced concepts of I. If you want, I can make a video sometime, learn how to do things, evolve with it, not just use it like a super Google like most kids. In any case, my friends, thank you for watching this video so far. That was Lia's Marxist vision and we'll see you in a next one. See you soon.