It's funny how people look at things the first time i watch the matrix i look for all kind religious meaning in it " i was 16" when all these stupid Illuminati bull shit was going around but i just finish watching it aging and watching it as a software programmer i could now see how stupid and gullible i was!!!
Not entirely relevant, but this question has been bugging me forever:
Why do people assume that machines will become self-aware given they reach a certain level of complexity? We havent yet determined what makes us self aware. Many think it is inevitable that machines will eventually develop a will of their own, but Im skeptical and unconvinced that will actually happen.
@EdMcStinko I agree, we haven't yet determined it. So what do we do when we cannot reach a conclusion? We build, design and create things that solve our conundrums. Ergo, it may very well be a machine that discovers the answer to the question of human self awarness. If/when it finds the answer, it would have a conscious insight to how we work. It could very well understand us better than ourselves and its therein the threat of being usurped could become very real. Not saying it will just maybe
It's sad that people feel that movies are good enough to draw philosophical insights from. I would expect people to be taken in with such movies if they were children - as sort of a 'mother goose' version of philosophical treatises. But for 'adults' to go on about it. Ridiculous. Not Brendan of course - who basically uses it as an excuse to teach something more. Good one brendan.
I think that if machines take knowledge of themselves one day, like in Matrix, they shouldn't be agressive with us if logic does not dictate the opposite. If you watch "The Second Rennaisance" from Animatrix short stories, you'll undestand why do machines act like that in Matrix: humans used them as slaves, and wanted to destroy them only because they considerated machines as a menace. So, machines only wanted to live, not to simply destroy humans or convert them into batteries.
I assume that, since I-Robot is a movie based on the book that Isaac Asimov wrote and I don't know that much about the man, that he did an enormous amount of philosophizing on this subject.
This reminds me of a certain scene in I-Robot; the part where Sonny sketches a landscape from his "dream". Machines are able to replicate "art" and distribute it, as well as randomly arrange pictures, shapes, and colors, but it will always lack the creativity of the human mind. I don't believe we will ever pass the threshold of machine's intelligence surpassing human intelligence, but there is always and will always be a place in the economy for human creativity.
Good video! But you're only dealing with the economic aspects of machinery. Machinery is also an effective weapon against class struggle. I recommend Raniero Panzieri's "The Capitalist Use of Machinery" for a start (you'll find it anywhere on the web). Greetings from Germany!
good point. I have just finished reading Braverman's "labor and monopoly capital" on this subject and will soon be starting several videos around this topic.
I didn't know Braverman. I rever to an italian approach to Marxism called "Operaism". There is a brilliant introduction by Steve Wright called "Storming Heaven". Another great book on that topic is Beverly Silvers "Forces of labour" that examines the global development of class struggle in the last 150 years. It clearly shows that the use of new machinery and the reorganisation of the production process is a means of breaking the workers power. Check it out!
so i agree that machines can never replace ALL human labor. but is it possible for machines to replace all UNDESIRABLE human labor, and leave humans only to engage in creative work that they enjoy? obviously, to have exchange value, the labor that humans did would still need to be socially valuable in addition to individually valuable.
This is precisely the sort of predicament we have in the computer world right now. Creative work is what creates the exchange value. The work of duplication and distribution has been automated. But look at how difficult it is to protect private property in the digital world! And look how hard it is to draw the line between one person's work and another's. The attempt to erase labor from production threatens the very fabric of capitalism.
and machines being able to process more info? i thought the highest number of calculations per second that machines have achieved was 1 quadrilllion, while humans do 20 quads.
interesting, but have u seen the animatrix? wut happens when machines learn to feel, and rise up to form a nation of their own? the humans went to war cuz the machines were so efficient, they crashed their economy. well im sure we wouldent buy from them, would the nazis buy from israel? XD, and if war comes, EMP nukes 'n a few ground units can probably clean them up... BUT WUT HAPPENS IF A MACHINE BECOMES A LEADER? =O socialism may have failed because of human nature, but machines dont have that
I definitely agree that intellectual labor adds value to products and though I don't distinguish between physical and intellectual work in this video, I see no reason why they can't both fit within a labor theory of value.
They cannot both fit within any labor hour based theory of value for 1 main reason, they are heterogeneous goods. Any 2 hours of labor are different in every way, except the fact that they took 1 hour to complete. Is a hours worth or finger painting of equal value to an hour of someone building a house.
In what way are any 2 periods of time of equal value? I think none, so any theory of value that tried to use time to compare work is essentially meaningless.
well you bring up here a separate but also important distinction. In addition to "socially necessary labor time" we have the concept of
"abstract labor": the idea that exchange value abstracts from the heterogeneous labor processes and validates labor in the abstract. This is not just an empty assertion, but based on the empirical observation that all commodities are exchangeable for money, thus all measured against a common standard of value. Called the "simplification problem"...
The "simplification problem"- there is a lot of literature devoted to this issue. Here are the basic themes: capitalism exerts a very homogenizing influence on labor, reducing labor to mechanized, reproducible motions, establishing pay scales for skill, training workforces so as to break the power of skilled laborers, etc. On the other hand there is always some degree of managerial and scientific skill implied in this process, so nothing can ever be totally simplified. Thus simplification is a..
dominant tendency, but obviously all labor hasn't been reduced to low-skill work. There's always a tension here. But more skilled labor is valued more, and thus the commodities is produced have a higher exchange value. There is a lot of literature on this issue, and I don't think it discredits the LTV at all. In fact, the issue of abstract labor and simplification are crucial to understanding both the capitalist labor process and the nature of value in our society.
This work is immaculate. The easy understanding of your concepts coupled with the popularity of the Matrix makes this video a good introduction for Marxian economists. One of your best so far!
It's funny how people look at things the first time i watch the matrix i look for all kind religious meaning in it " i was 16" when all these stupid Illuminati bull shit was going around but i just finish watching it aging and watching it as a software programmer i could now see how stupid and gullible i was!!!
TheSafiyasan 3 months ago
Not entirely relevant, but this question has been bugging me forever:
Why do people assume that machines will become self-aware given they reach a certain level of complexity? We havent yet determined what makes us self aware. Many think it is inevitable that machines will eventually develop a will of their own, but Im skeptical and unconvinced that will actually happen.
EdMcStinko 1 year ago
@EdMcStinko I agree, we haven't yet determined it. So what do we do when we cannot reach a conclusion? We build, design and create things that solve our conundrums. Ergo, it may very well be a machine that discovers the answer to the question of human self awarness. If/when it finds the answer, it would have a conscious insight to how we work. It could very well understand us better than ourselves and its therein the threat of being usurped could become very real. Not saying it will just maybe
1702jrd 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good video thanks Brendan. The way you describe it sounds almost as if its something roughly predictable using mathematics, at least to an extent.
EdMcStinko 1 year ago
Comment removed
EdMcStinko 1 year ago
It's sad that people feel that movies are good enough to draw philosophical insights from. I would expect people to be taken in with such movies if they were children - as sort of a 'mother goose' version of philosophical treatises. But for 'adults' to go on about it. Ridiculous. Not Brendan of course - who basically uses it as an excuse to teach something more. Good one brendan.
toedster 1 year ago
I think that if machines take knowledge of themselves one day, like in Matrix, they shouldn't be agressive with us if logic does not dictate the opposite. If you watch "The Second Rennaisance" from Animatrix short stories, you'll undestand why do machines act like that in Matrix: humans used them as slaves, and wanted to destroy them only because they considerated machines as a menace. So, machines only wanted to live, not to simply destroy humans or convert them into batteries.
Alpharius93 2 years ago
I assume that, since I-Robot is a movie based on the book that Isaac Asimov wrote and I don't know that much about the man, that he did an enormous amount of philosophizing on this subject.
fuzzball297 2 years ago
This is the only situation in which human labor is valued above machine labor.
fuzzball297 2 years ago
This reminds me of a certain scene in I-Robot; the part where Sonny sketches a landscape from his "dream". Machines are able to replicate "art" and distribute it, as well as randomly arrange pictures, shapes, and colors, but it will always lack the creativity of the human mind. I don't believe we will ever pass the threshold of machine's intelligence surpassing human intelligence, but there is always and will always be a place in the economy for human creativity.
fuzzball297 2 years ago
Good video! But you're only dealing with the economic aspects of machinery. Machinery is also an effective weapon against class struggle. I recommend Raniero Panzieri's "The Capitalist Use of Machinery" for a start (you'll find it anywhere on the web). Greetings from Germany!
reformationposttlc 3 years ago 2
good point. I have just finished reading Braverman's "labor and monopoly capital" on this subject and will soon be starting several videos around this topic.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I didn't know Braverman. I rever to an italian approach to Marxism called "Operaism". There is a brilliant introduction by Steve Wright called "Storming Heaven". Another great book on that topic is Beverly Silvers "Forces of labour" that examines the global development of class struggle in the last 150 years. It clearly shows that the use of new machinery and the reorganisation of the production process is a means of breaking the workers power. Check it out!
reformationposttlc 3 years ago
so i agree that machines can never replace ALL human labor. but is it possible for machines to replace all UNDESIRABLE human labor, and leave humans only to engage in creative work that they enjoy? obviously, to have exchange value, the labor that humans did would still need to be socially valuable in addition to individually valuable.
binjahmon 3 years ago
This is precisely the sort of predicament we have in the computer world right now. Creative work is what creates the exchange value. The work of duplication and distribution has been automated. But look at how difficult it is to protect private property in the digital world! And look how hard it is to draw the line between one person's work and another's. The attempt to erase labor from production threatens the very fabric of capitalism.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
wow, it never ceases to amaze me how many different ways there are to analyze the matrix! what an epic work to have so many important implications.
binjahmon 3 years ago
and machines being able to process more info? i thought the highest number of calculations per second that machines have achieved was 1 quadrilllion, while humans do 20 quads.
crubs83 3 years ago
interesting, but have u seen the animatrix? wut happens when machines learn to feel, and rise up to form a nation of their own? the humans went to war cuz the machines were so efficient, they crashed their economy. well im sure we wouldent buy from them, would the nazis buy from israel? XD, and if war comes, EMP nukes 'n a few ground units can probably clean them up... BUT WUT HAPPENS IF A MACHINE BECOMES A LEADER? =O socialism may have failed because of human nature, but machines dont have that
crubs83 3 years ago
awesome these are just getting better and better. Also I'm crossing robots off the panic plan list now only Zombies, Aliens, and Molemen remain.
McOath 3 years ago
WOW! This is awesome! Your computer analogy as to how its value is added to only by human interaction is great.
joven35 3 years ago
i delt you will be the last one
but good video
you should have done one on terminator
gbg112 3 years ago
"the only thing that can create more value is human labor"
May i ask how many labor hours it took to design the computer you are using? You are ignoring the role of thought.
3pmielec 3 years ago
I definitely agree that intellectual labor adds value to products and though I don't distinguish between physical and intellectual work in this video, I see no reason why they can't both fit within a labor theory of value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
They cannot both fit within any labor hour based theory of value for 1 main reason, they are heterogeneous goods. Any 2 hours of labor are different in every way, except the fact that they took 1 hour to complete. Is a hours worth or finger painting of equal value to an hour of someone building a house.
In what way are any 2 periods of time of equal value? I think none, so any theory of value that tried to use time to compare work is essentially meaningless.
3pmielec 3 years ago
well you bring up here a separate but also important distinction. In addition to "socially necessary labor time" we have the concept of
"abstract labor": the idea that exchange value abstracts from the heterogeneous labor processes and validates labor in the abstract. This is not just an empty assertion, but based on the empirical observation that all commodities are exchangeable for money, thus all measured against a common standard of value. Called the "simplification problem"...
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The "simplification problem"- there is a lot of literature devoted to this issue. Here are the basic themes: capitalism exerts a very homogenizing influence on labor, reducing labor to mechanized, reproducible motions, establishing pay scales for skill, training workforces so as to break the power of skilled laborers, etc. On the other hand there is always some degree of managerial and scientific skill implied in this process, so nothing can ever be totally simplified. Thus simplification is a..
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
dominant tendency, but obviously all labor hasn't been reduced to low-skill work. There's always a tension here. But more skilled labor is valued more, and thus the commodities is produced have a higher exchange value. There is a lot of literature on this issue, and I don't think it discredits the LTV at all. In fact, the issue of abstract labor and simplification are crucial to understanding both the capitalist labor process and the nature of value in our society.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Brilliant subject and presented well in the right tone,etc. I cant wait to see your next vid. Please let me know when it is out
GOOD WORK
nbm34 3 years ago
yo dude, you only need an introductory montage sequence now with a catchy theme song. it's all within your grasp! good work.
greggmervine 3 years ago
Brendan, this is probably my favorite video so far as well. It is succinct and quite entertaining. I hope to see more like it.
renegadoe 3 years ago 4
This work is immaculate. The easy understanding of your concepts coupled with the popularity of the Matrix makes this video a good introduction for Marxian economists. One of your best so far!
5 Stars.
santino666 3 years ago 2
Five Red Stars for this one - important issues covered well !
ZEPANIAHW 3 years ago
I agree completely this is your best video and you know I liked some of your other ones.
I never did like the Matrix !
nickglais 3 years ago 2
Excellent work Brendan! This is the best video yet. Nobody will ever need to talk about the Matrix again.
milt0nics 3 years ago 2