{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02","title":"人工智能和资本主义的未来","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780745338613","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02","id":"a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02","uuid":"a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02","title":"人工智能和资本主义的未来","normalized_title":"人工智能和资本主义的未来","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780745338613","isbns":["9780745338613","9780745338606","9781786803955","9781786803979","9781786803962"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":225,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E4%BA%BA%E5%B7%A5%E6%99%BA%E8%83%BD%E5%92%8C%E8%B5%84%E6%9C%AC%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89%E7%9A%84%E6%9C%AA%E6%9D%A5","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/a2eab101-adfc-4a0d-8142-63a4d11cee02/search"},"page":{"printed_page":134,"pdf_page":142,"physical_index":142,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"98f281e57f864afb3573d20be1545983e8ae1ff6c46ef6bf2821a2b2a991db3f"},"chapter":"Digital Barricades: Interventions in Digital Culture and Politics","content":"In this scenario, AGI would therefore first and foremost function as a commodity and be treated as something to be sold. What social form would it assume after being exchanged? That depends on who buys it, what it is treated as and where in the social process of production it is put to use. If sold to an individual consumer, the AGI would enter the sphere of consumption and social reproduction, but would therefore be incapable of functioning in the social process of producing surplus-value and would have no social form (although it would have the legal form of private property). In other words, it would have just its natural form and function as a use-value (e.g. for care, security, or domestic labour, companionship or pleasure) and as such would be the equivalent of consumer goods like toasters and smartphones. If the AGI was bought by a capitalist to be used in a production process, it would function in precisely the same way as the narrow AI or dumber machines it replaced: as fixed capital and thus a means for reducing necessary labour-time and cheapening commodities, and its value would be passed on to the commodities it helps to produce. Indeed, the AGI would function in this way even if it replaced a human worker. Despite being functionally identical to a living labourer, and perhaps even more capable than a human being, it would still be fixed capital and would not create surplus-value. This AGI could not create value due to its social form; it appears in the form of fixed (constant) capital because it was purchased and is maintained as such. Human workers, however, appear in the form of variable capital after they have sold their labour-power to a capitalist in exchange for a wage. But if a perfect machine is no longer a machine because it has negated its existence as fixed capital and can thus possibly become variable capital, how would this actually occur if AGIs continued to be bought and sold as commodities, i.e. as the property of someone else?\n\nWhat problematizes the AGI’s ontological status is that being generally intelligent it could, like Rossum’s universal robots, be mistaken for, or ethically be recognized as, a person even when it is the private property of someone else. Čapek deliberately chose the word robota to refer to the artificial biological creations of the Rossum corporation because in the Czech language it means ‘corvée’, ‘forced labour’ or ‘serf labour’, and more generally connotes hard work or simply labour. While AGIs are not robots, if it were bought and sold as the private property of someone else, its labour, wherever it was performed, would be unfree. AGIs would, in other words, be slaves. Serfdom and corvée are different types of slavery, which Marx argues is a relation of production based on personal relations of domination as opposed to value’s impersonal domination through fetishized social forms (1990: 271, 303–4, 345–8). Thus he argues that ‘in the slave relation the worker is nothing but a living labour-machine, which therefore has a value for others, or rather is a value’ (Marx 1993: 465). The slave, in other words, has the same ontological status – appearing in the form of fixed capital – as machines or animals when used in a capitalist production process. But if Marx’s perfect machines refer to machines that are no longer machines, they cannot be slaves because then they would be functionally equivalent to a machine. Even if they can perform labour just as well as human beings, they would still not produce an iota of value. Machines become perfect if they can escape the productive relations of slavery and can instead be found in the labour market, selling their labour-power as a commodity. It is now necessary to briefly turn to how surplus-value is produced and why the capitalist can find labour-power on the market.\n\n134\n\ninhuman power","previous_page":133,"next_page":135}