Absolutely not, and this AI slop written substack makes no constructive argument as to why. Population isn’t a guarantee of anything. Sub Saharan Africa has a population of over a billion right now, expected to be 2 billion by 2050. No one is talking about the SADC becoming a superpower alliance. No one is talking about South Africa being a world leader. India is well behind the US and China on advanced domestic manufacturing and industry, decades behind at minimum, while China and the USA continue to advance. There is no guarantee that nations and blocs with large populations will close the technological gap, unless a concentrated effort is made to do so, through institutional reform. It’s taken China decades to get to where they are today, and a mass reform of their governance and institutions (Maoism, Dengism and post Deng current governance) to develop their advanced technology and industrial capacity. “India superpower” is a meme, especially under the current government and institutions.
In reality, the US and China will be the leading nations and only true superpowers, with subordinate powers in the European sphere of influence. The EU will be subordinate to the USA, Russia subordinate to China. The Pacific theatre is far more interesting and important for US - China security and great power competition. Japan and South Korea will play more important roles for the US than India here. India can be some leader of a “non aligned” movement, but they lack the influence for anything more currently. India itself is embroiled with territorial disputes with China and Pakistan, with Pakistan being armed by both the US and China.
Always on to a winner when this phrase comes along.
India may be dragged into being number 2 due to Western decline + forced to turn east + population size. Doesn’t mean it won’t take a long time to get there.
You would have to bet that other countries with smaller population sizes would reach a higher GDP per capita to and maintain a total GDP more than India’s total for the long run. So unless those countries turn socialist they will then remain capitalist but now with an increasingly decreasing imperialist subsidy. Not sure if the maths adds up.
All of the above assumes USAmerican imperialism over the Americas doesn’t work out. I think in the long run it won’t.
I’m sorry I just hate reading obviously AI written substacks that have no constructive points made. What’s the point? Just outsource all thinking to the machine.
Our end point is roughly the same (workers need to organize) but man alive do I disagree with that writer’s lengthy reasoning and observations. It feels like he’s responding far too earnestly to a few dozen specific social media straw men and influencers and barely mentions why your average working or part-time artists feel threatened by the rise of generative AI, or what these workers should actually do in the meantime as their means of living disappear into data centers.
Generative AI as it exists from the Big American Tech Companies is irredeemably evil and I have yet to see any convincing arguments for using it. These closed-source models are capitalist tools built for capitalist goals consuming titanic amounts of resources and money so billionaires don’t have to pay humans for artistic labor. Every prompt eats bottles of fresh water and piles of fossil-fuel power. The data centers are ruining human quality of life all over the world with their noise and consumption.
Why should I contribute to that in any way?
(Self-hosted open-source models are far less harmful anyway.)
Their analysis is the critique against artisanal reaction but now applied in the context of AI; a lot of westerners’ “marxist” takes is just proudhonism and the author was using this as an example to highlight that.
There is no reason why the average Indian, given sufficient investment in human capital and infrastructure, should not be able to generate just as much value as the average American, European or Chinese. The same goes for those Sub-Saharan African states which are rich in natural resources and whose climate allows them to support a large population. It’s just a question of development.
The border disputes between China and India or Pakistan and India are a nothing-burger. They were useful for the Western imperialists during the Cold War as points of friction to prevent regional integration and stoke confrontation. Now they are mostly used by the political elites of India and Pakistan to distract from domestic economic issues.
As the region sees increased development and economic integration, and as the economic situation of the people improves, those points of friction cease to be as relevant, as none of the parties involved will want to rock the boat of lucrative economic ties. The remaining disputes can then be resolved via simple bilateral negotiations just like China and Russia resolved their own long-standing border disputes.
Japan and South Korea are likely to decline significantly in relevance as the global south rises. They are after all relatively small in the grand scheme of things and relatively resource-poor. They have been artificially propped up by the American empire due to their geostrategic position, but US power is now receding and allies are becoming liabilities.
Russia is not subordinate to anyone, they are the world’s largest country, a nuclear superpower with the largest abundance of natural resources on the planet. And with climate change opening up the arctic transport corridors they are looking to rise to an even more powerful position of global economic importance, even post-fossil fuels.
As for the EU, it is unclear how long it can even still last for. It will probably break up at some point, same as NATO. Until then, yes, Europe will remain marginal and subordinate, having tied their boat to the sinking ship of the American empire.
Absolutely not, and this AI slop written substack makes no constructive argument as to why. Population isn’t a guarantee of anything. Sub Saharan Africa has a population of over a billion right now, expected to be 2 billion by 2050. No one is talking about the SADC becoming a superpower alliance. No one is talking about South Africa being a world leader. India is well behind the US and China on advanced domestic manufacturing and industry, decades behind at minimum, while China and the USA continue to advance. There is no guarantee that nations and blocs with large populations will close the technological gap, unless a concentrated effort is made to do so, through institutional reform. It’s taken China decades to get to where they are today, and a mass reform of their governance and institutions (Maoism, Dengism and post Deng current governance) to develop their advanced technology and industrial capacity. “India superpower” is a meme, especially under the current government and institutions.
In reality, the US and China will be the leading nations and only true superpowers, with subordinate powers in the European sphere of influence. The EU will be subordinate to the USA, Russia subordinate to China. The Pacific theatre is far more interesting and important for US - China security and great power competition. Japan and South Korea will play more important roles for the US than India here. India can be some leader of a “non aligned” movement, but they lack the influence for anything more currently. India itself is embroiled with territorial disputes with China and Pakistan, with Pakistan being armed by both the US and China.
Always on to a winner when this phrase comes along.
India may be dragged into being number 2 due to Western decline + forced to turn east + population size. Doesn’t mean it won’t take a long time to get there.
You would have to bet that other countries with smaller population sizes would reach a higher GDP per capita to and maintain a total GDP more than India’s total for the long run. So unless those countries turn socialist they will then remain capitalist but now with an increasingly decreasing imperialist subsidy. Not sure if the maths adds up.
All of the above assumes USAmerican imperialism over the Americas doesn’t work out. I think in the long run it won’t.
I’m sorry I just hate reading obviously AI written substacks that have no constructive points made. What’s the point? Just outsource all thinking to the machine.
https://redsails.org/artisanal-intelligence/
Our end point is roughly the same (workers need to organize) but man alive do I disagree with that writer’s lengthy reasoning and observations. It feels like he’s responding far too earnestly to a few dozen specific social media straw men and influencers and barely mentions why your average working or part-time artists feel threatened by the rise of generative AI, or what these workers should actually do in the meantime as their means of living disappear into data centers.
Generative AI as it exists from the Big American Tech Companies is irredeemably evil and I have yet to see any convincing arguments for using it. These closed-source models are capitalist tools built for capitalist goals consuming titanic amounts of resources and money so billionaires don’t have to pay humans for artistic labor. Every prompt eats bottles of fresh water and piles of fossil-fuel power. The data centers are ruining human quality of life all over the world with their noise and consumption.
Why should I contribute to that in any way?
(Self-hosted open-source models are far less harmful anyway.)
Their analysis is the critique against artisanal reaction but now applied in the context of AI; a lot of westerners’ “marxist” takes is just proudhonism and the author was using this as an example to highlight that.
There is no reason why the average Indian, given sufficient investment in human capital and infrastructure, should not be able to generate just as much value as the average American, European or Chinese. The same goes for those Sub-Saharan African states which are rich in natural resources and whose climate allows them to support a large population. It’s just a question of development.
The border disputes between China and India or Pakistan and India are a nothing-burger. They were useful for the Western imperialists during the Cold War as points of friction to prevent regional integration and stoke confrontation. Now they are mostly used by the political elites of India and Pakistan to distract from domestic economic issues.
As the region sees increased development and economic integration, and as the economic situation of the people improves, those points of friction cease to be as relevant, as none of the parties involved will want to rock the boat of lucrative economic ties. The remaining disputes can then be resolved via simple bilateral negotiations just like China and Russia resolved their own long-standing border disputes.
Japan and South Korea are likely to decline significantly in relevance as the global south rises. They are after all relatively small in the grand scheme of things and relatively resource-poor. They have been artificially propped up by the American empire due to their geostrategic position, but US power is now receding and allies are becoming liabilities.
Russia is not subordinate to anyone, they are the world’s largest country, a nuclear superpower with the largest abundance of natural resources on the planet. And with climate change opening up the arctic transport corridors they are looking to rise to an even more powerful position of global economic importance, even post-fossil fuels.
As for the EU, it is unclear how long it can even still last for. It will probably break up at some point, same as NATO. Until then, yes, Europe will remain marginal and subordinate, having tied their boat to the sinking ship of the American empire.