The case for the Neo-Luddites - Rage against the machine learning

Now most of the critics of AI and data centers are assuming that basically AI does not work, or at least have assumed this for a long time. They say it is not »real intelligence« (whatever »real« means), that it is just a »stochastic parrot«, and that it can never become more intelligent than humans.

Some even hold this position in the light of the recent development.

Now it is good to see that finally people are waking up. We can only see the real dangers if we assume that it does work. That we can reach AGI or, depending on the definition, have already reached it.

Bernie Sanders seems to get it. Rutger Bregman in his essay equates the AI-deniers with climate deniers. I often see some parallels with Covid denial.

Anyways: So (whether you believe in it or not) let us assume that it does work as advertised or will do so in the near (a few months) future.

Then:

1. RSI (recursive self-improvement) is no longer sci-fi.

The chances that the already scary powerful AI becomes capable way beyond our imagination is a very real possibility. Projecting the current development (doubling of capabilities every 3 months) into the future, it is not only a real possibility, it is the most likely possibility.

This means we must slow down the development as much as possible. Anything that slows it down is needed. The data center moratorium is good and necessary, but in light of this development is not sufficient. Keep in mind the current AI models have been trained on current data center infrastructure. Also keep in mind that most of the improvements are because of algorithmic improvement (the exponent in the exponential growth comes from ca 40-45% algorithmic improvements, 40-45% recent data centers and hardware purchases, and only 15% from Moore's Law).

So we definitely need much more than the data center moratorium. Directly controlling the AI labs, putting them under public democratic control, halting all AI training, and putting almost all research capacity into safety and alignment research.

I know this is all not easy, especially since Trump in the US. But then again: After the midterms maybe there is a chance...

And then there are the »but China« voices. At least China is releasing their models as open source/open weight. And they do not have an interest in the apocalypse either.

What really gives some hope here: The AI summit organized by Tristan Harris

2. There is no bubble that bursts. At least not on its own.

The global GDP is $128T. The investments in AI this year are about $2.6T. So only about 2%. If AI works and can replace almost all human labor, then the investments actually look small compared to the "grand prize" in this game. Now you will hardly find a bigger advocate of UBI than me. But the reference to UBI is used by the tech-oligarchs to wave away any concerns about job loss. The issue is: The rich and powerful will not give it to us just like that. As with any social progress, we need to fight for it. And, as Yuval Noah Harari has pointed out: Once our labour power is no longer needed, we lose our most important weapon in this fight: The possibility of going on strike—or at least threatening to go on strike.

So when we want UBI (and we absolutely need it), then we need to fight for it NOW. Also see basic-income.eu - our ECI starting on the 4th of January 2027.

But if we manage to really slow down the AI development, bring it under democratic control, and tax the energy consumption of servers and data centers into oblivion, then we might create a situation where the investors see that their investments will not bring the return. Or, as Felix Stalder has pointed out: Not fast enough. Then there might be a bursting bubble, and this would again help to slow things down.

So yes: All the power to the neo-Luddites: Rage against the machine learning!

But as the dot-com bubble has not stopped the Internet, neither would an AI bubble stop AI.

3. In a best-case scenario where we could stop the rapid progress:

We would still have really powerful AI right now, and society could decide on where to best use it. Medicine, material science, ... and of course robotics that does the tedious work. With the rapid, exponential growth that we had on AI during the last months: Most of the capabilities of current systems (running on current data centers and not needing any more) have not yet been used at all. Most companies are just in the early stages of experimenting with agents. I actually want the "Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism," and I want it now. And we can have it now. No need for the rapid progress and no need for more data centers. Just reaping the fruits of what has already been achieved. At least for the coming years. Also plenty of work for AI researchers: Just divert everything into safety and alignment.

I think it is really necessary to also point out that we can have the upsides of AI and that they can be really good. Otherwise people fall into despair. We need the carrot. But it must be made clear that we can only have the carrot if we do not fall over the cliff. Thus we need to violently oppose the current trajectory.

Franz Schäfer (Mond), October 2026.

More On the topic: