{"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":165,"pdf_page":173,"physical_index":173,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d5c747543ad5ad53704a4aa9de437648622170039bdfe8eb5e80f66ef17ab6b7"},"chapter":"Digital Barricades: Interventions in Digital Culture and Politics","content":"CHAPTER 3\n\n1. Discussion of ‘the singularity’ was popularized by Raymond Kurzweil (2005a). Competing accounts adopt different markers for its arrival. Marxian discussions of the singularity are rare, but include Rikowski (2003); Dyer-Witheford (2010); Kjøsen (2013a; 2018); Rectenwald (2013); Steinhoff (2014).\n\n2. This chapter is an expansion and critique of the arguments one of us presented in the article ‘Träumen Androiden vom Mehrwert?’ (Kjøsen 2018).\n\n3. HLMI may also refer to ‘high-level machine intelligence’ (Nadin 2018: 2) or can be understood as ‘Human-Level AI (HLAI) (Nilsson 2005).\n\n4. Each mode of production has its own definition of human (Read 2017). That the definition of HMLI ties human intelligence to labour strongly suggests that anthropogenesis in the capitalist mode of production concerns a being’s capacity to labour. Indeed, Nils J. Nilsson has suggested that the Turing test be replaced by the ‘employment test’, which an AI would pass if it is ‘able to perform the jobs ordinarily performed by humans’ (2005: 68).\n\n5. As active AGI projects, Baum includes projects that ‘either identify as AGI or conduct R&D to build something that is considered to be AGI, humanlevel intelligence, or superintelligence’ (2017: 13). Baum includes projects aimed at ‘brain emulations’ because they would be ‘computational entities with general intelligence’ and are as such ‘a type of AGI’ (2017: 8). There is, however, disagreement as to whether brain emulation falls under the umbrella of AGI (Wang and Goertzel 2007: 7). Baum’s survey is based on publicly available information which means that there are likely more active AGI projects that have yet to be made publicly known or are deliberately kept in secret.\n\n6. Baum’s (2017: 18) breakdown is as follows: academic institutions (20); private corporations (12); public corporations (6); non-profits (5); governmental; no formal institution (2). Four of the projects are split across two of these categories, which is why these numbers add up to 49.\n\n7. As we discuss later, technical achievement is of course by no means the same as economic deployment. For an attempt to estimate the temporal horizons of the technological singularity by an eminent mainstream economist, putting it at least over a century away, if ever, see Nordhaus (2015).\n\n8. Marx referred to this fetish as the ‘trinity formula’ (1991: 953).\n\n9. As raw material inputs, animals would still appear as constant capital, but of the circulating variety and, therefore, with a different social function than that of fixed (constant) capital.\n\n10. In Moore and Aveling’s translation of Capital, both Kopf and ideell are translated as ‘imagination’ (Marx 2011: 198). While Ben Fowkes (Marx 1990) correctly translates ideell, the correct translation of Kopf is ‘head’.\n\n11. Intuition can be linked to creativity, although the connection is tenuous (Pétervári, Osman and Bhattacharya 2016).\n\nnotes <sup>.</sup>\n\n165","previous_page":164,"next_page":166}