Apparently, Elon Musk's Girlfriend is a Communist

The mother of his sixth (seventh? eighth? Dude's got a lotta kids) child says that AI will enable us to live the dreams of Marx.

This seems like non-news except that she has a famous boyfriend, but the article seems to be intentionally obtuse about how AI could be used to solve problems.

I think the only thing we can get out of that is that most people are triggered when the word communist comes around. It is amazing how it scares so many people.

I’m not wading thru that article, but the basic idea is probably right. If technology advances to the point where the cost of production for nearly everything approaches zero, then the term “economic system” ceases to have meaning. If you can have whatever you need or want just by asking for it . . .

I believe she prefers to be called "Grimey."

Everyone works for the betterment of mankind?

Yeah, a godlike AI might be able to make communism work.

It might also become Skynet or Ultron. China's already working on the former.

She's kind of neoliberal but with communist aesthetics. She likes the idea of communism (or at least the gist of the idea), but expects computers and technology to do all the work, and while computers and technology, including AI, would certainly help level the playing field, humanity is at the core of communism. I also doubt she would agree to everyone owning the AI, because that would be a part of communism as well. There are no billionaire AI intellectual property owners in any communist society.

Plus, she married Elon Musk, whose own company engages in slave labor. That kind of removes her from the communist side of things.

Yeah, cuz no Communist regime has ever used slave labor . . .

If the "I" in "AI" is for real, no-one could own it because it would be a sentient being in its own right.

Lanz, the US still uses slaves right now. Seriously. Chill.

The ONLY way it works is in the absence of scarcity.

Scare your mouth onto my balls.

While Grimes could have been more eloquent (major understatement) and more specific (though this is TikTok, not the United Nations), her point is... if not sound, then at least well within mainstream futurist discourse. Sufficiently advanced AI* is widely regarded as one possible way we get to the fully automated luxury gay space communism of Star Trek -- a route to ending scarcity.

*which, yes, Virginia, does include robotics as a subfield, as anyone who's so much as been to the Wikipedia page on AI knows.

The last part is more or less "I want Star Trek, not the democide of the kulaks." I wholeheartedly agree.

Also, can we talk about what a waste it is to be a billionaire and have only one girlfriend?

Why buy when it's so much less of a hassle to rent?

Which we already have within reach but make shockingly inefficient use of.

This is because those who could deliver this, will not because those in power will never willingly give up that power.

No, we're nowhere near post-scarcity. Almost everything we produce and consume still requires human labor, and humans very strangely expect to be rewarded for labor. Categories of certain natural resources are limited. Various compounds remain devilishly hard to manufacture. We've a long way to go.
You're right when it comes to some basic foodstuffs . . . we produce vast surpluses of things like grain and rice, for example . . . but it still entails costs for production and transport.

This statement proves that you aren’t as smart as you think you are, and therefore, everyone who thinks they’re smarter than you, are.

Also, what sort of currency do you suppose cave men were paid?

What sort of currency did native Americans use?

Capitalism is the economic system that utilizes currency. Other forms of economic systems trade/share/distribute goods and services differently.

There's something off about Grimes. Her music is, at best, charitably described as...odd. Also, dogs seem to go crazy around her, and she's obsessed with finding this single young waitress from California. Not sure what that's about.

Holy Jeebus, you are fucking stupid. Did I say "currency"? Did I say "paid"? No, I said REWARDED, as in give something get something. The very foundational basis of economics. I have eggs, you have milk, we trade. How about you don't interject when the grown-ups are talking?

Then why would you think that a different economic system would not “reward” you for your contribution?

This is correct. In a communist system, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the reward system. Regardless of how it is setup, everyone involved in the community gets what they need to secure their lives and possessions: housing, food, medicine, and so on. No matter what work you do, you already have what you need so there's no "grind" just to make ends meet. You don't have to do some side hustle just to keep a roof over your head. You contribute what you can, and your needs are met.

The "reward" that cavemen and Native Americans got was that they had shelter and got to eat.

So..., basic necessities.

What luxuries did cavemen and Native Americans have that the “wealthier” cavemen and Native Americans could afford that the others didn’t?

Didn't they barter for tools and beads and stuff? During the paleolithic age, the reward was just being able to survive long enough to reproduce....but during the neolithic age there was trade going on all over the place.

"Cavemen" (a colloquism for hunter/gatherers?) society and Native American societies should not be lumped together.

“Bartering” is not the same as “using currency”

At some point between cavemen and say ... Roman Empire, the human population became so large and clans became so large that everyone sharing in the day’s hunting and gathering became unfeasible. So, humans developed a “currency” that could be used universally when bartering.

This was useful when trading with other villages as many villages may have an abundance of one thing, but not enough of another. And the village that does have what is needed, doesn’t have it. So, they trade for “currency” and that currency can be taken to another village that didn’t need the original goods, but needs something else that they can buy with the currency.

The human population now has grown so much that trading in currency is no longer optimal. Some have way too much and others have way to little.

So, now we need to come up with a new economic system. One in which everyone, again, can equally enjoy in the spoils of the collective productivity of human labor.

Her point is better than you're giving credit for.

Post scarcity, by most definitions, does not refer to scarcity of currency. It refers to the underlying commodities whose supply is moderated by those currencies.

Exchange collateral as we know it is not a natural resource, nor is it actually a pre requisite for structuring societies. It's merely the system currently in use for trade.

In terms of meeting our basic needs the use of those currencies can just as often become a hindrance as an aid where their value becomes divorced from their wider material benefits to humanity. If the acquisition of money comes to overshadow it's utility as a means to progress then capitalism as a system is not indispensable.