Piousbox

The daily grift column includes some of my observations as to things that don't make sense for me in the consumed media. They aren't necessarily daily, the column is just called that. But I try to make it daily. But with no guarantees.

Today, I'll be looking over a quick article in the Money magazine, a spanish edition, from december 2024. The article is in spanish, and the analysis is in english, but I think it will work out fine for you, the reader. We don't need to actually translate or read the whole article, but I will be refering to the article verbatim, if piece-wise. The goal of this exercise is not to read the propaganda, but to spot inconsistencies, fakes and misdirection and lies. So let's get started.

Here is the entire article, it's a quick two-page read: 

Now, in 2026 we know a little bit more about what AI is and what it is not. It isn't a silver bullet. It barely does anything useful. Sure, it regurgitates previous information very well, creates nice fake pictures, and facilitates search. But it destroys reality more than creates it. A lot of people would prefer the real thing to AI slop - whatever the AI slop is. Between reading the writing of a talented writer, and the writing of AI, most people would prefer the real thing. In terms of beautiful images, as well: even though the AI is very good at creating some beautified images, at least my preference is to watch real things. The AI wouldn't exist without real things, anyway.

And to be clear: I use AI every day. While coding, I ask AI questions almost continuously, while coding. So it is personally useful to me. I'm sure AI also increases revenues by reducing costs, by allowing owners to fire people and replace people with AI. AI may even do a better job than some humans. I'm not saying it's great for humanity, but I am saying that it's happening. With that in mind, let's now read and analyze the article.

The article says that AI would bring not only prosperity but also inclusiveness. But the word "inclusiveness" is double-speak for anti-meritocracy. Instead of achieving something, we give everyone equal amounts of the same thing, for free (communism, anyone?) and call that inclusiveness. This inclusiveness then destroys competitiveness and other market forces, and prevents superior things from being created or built. So "inclusiveness" is backwards, it prevents and limits achievements. Don't we want achievements? Inclusiveness is the opposite of that. And it has nothing to do with AI. Also, AI would increase inequality because it increases wealth. For example, if everyone's wealth doubles, the wealth inequality also doubles. So by creating value, AI increases inequality. Which may not be bad, but don't tel me that in creates "inclusiveness".

Next, the article says: the only limit is imagination and necessity. Ah no, the limit is actually energy generation. A lot of money is being poured into nuclear energy right now. Energy is the ultimate limit to achievement. Imagination has nothing to do with it.

Next, unfortunately the article talks about some PIB but doesn't explain what it is. I can't say the article is right about any of it - since the author doesn't bother having any clarity. What is PIB? Noone knows.

The article says AI is "light at the end of the tunnel." Sorry guys - but if something wasn't getting done in the last couple hundred years, it ain't getting done now with AI. Thinking that this new tech will somehow change the world (for the better?!) is precarious. Did the internet change the world for the better? I'm not sure. Are we better off now than in 1970's?

The article says the AI technology, "for the first time in history", doesn't help the capable at the expense of the less-able. That for the first time ever, the technology helps the common fork, not just the rich. Hate to bring it to you, but if it wasn't convenient for the rich people, the technology would have been kept a close-guarded secret. I'm sure that there is plenty of technology that we don't even know about, because that tech is actually useful and the rich people keep it to themselves. (Example: the automatic trading robots. Those are not free, and are not avaiable to you and me.) Maybe AI is like alcohol, in that it's so easy to make, the wealthy ones cannot keep it to themselves. Because anyone can reproduce AI in his garage. Or maybe the point of AI is consumtion from the get-go. The point is, I do not believe there has ever been, or will ever be, technology that helps the poor that doesn't help the rich more.

The article then says that AI is a leveler, allowing less-capable to operate as the more-capable. Even if it is true, this is anti-meritocratic, so I don't see it as being good. But also, I think the more-capable are exactly more capable of using the AI, so the AI actually benefits them more. So I don't see the point in the argument in either case: if AI helps to level the playing field, I don't see it as good. And if it doesn't, I don't see it as good, either.

Then the article talks about how AI would take over people's work, and world. If the AI is being productive, if it talks to itself without human involvement... how is this a good thing? No, it sounds like the end of the world, to me.

Overall, it is just that: daily grift. AI is not on your side. You can use it, like you can use a weapon, but don't forget that a tool is a tool, and a weapon is a weapon. And sure, we better come to terms with it, and learn to use it to the best of our ability - or risk going extinct. That is the present fight.