/lit/ - Literature

>>13360912
Moore's law doesn't stop innovation, it just means we have to use finite resources efficiently. And even if it did, the accelerationist wouldn't care.

You don't need a high-end computer system to do most of the stuff that Land is concerned with (i.e. be a capitalist); a desktop from 2010 plus some decent open-source software can manage supply chains, host a website, etc.

Even really sophisticated shit like Google can be done with many now-average computers on a large network. There's no need for super-tiny, high-powered CPUs unless you want to have a data center on your smartphone.

And, of course, if we do come up with some insanely complicated task that needs lots of CPU time, we can always parallelize it. This is Intel's new business model —moving money away from hardware research and towards software optimization.

For an accelerationist, then, nothing changes. Capitalists can still apply computing to areas of the economy that could be made harsher (e.g. Uber's union-busting), because they already have all the tools they need to do so, and any new obstacle can be overcome with good resource management.

The same is true of most other ideologies. Communists don't care how small computer systems are, they just care who owns those systems. Fascists don't care how software works, they just care about making sure that software spreads their propaganda. And so on.

>tl;dr —tech growth is already in software, not hardware, so moore's law doesn't matter at the political level

t. CS grad student