Capital vs. AI: An Inevitable Clash?

The question of whether AI development necessarily depends on capital has been on my mind since last year’s show Zhu’s WeChat Circle. At that time, we noted that DeepSeek seemed to succeed with minimal investment, raising a deeper question: is AI production inherently tied to capital? Traditional sectors—consumer goods, internet, industry, agriculture—operate under the logic of capital: invest capital, generate production, create profit, reinvest to grow capital. Will AI break this cycle? Will future AI production still require capital as a prerequisite?

From a cultural perspective, Max Weber suggested capitalism arose from Protestant ethics: the pursuit of maximum profit was prioritized, not leisure; profits were for glorifying God, not personal enjoyment. Modern societies, though secular, still follow a “profit-first” logic: earning money becomes the goal itself, not a means. In China, this manifests as a “collective hysteria”—people chase wealth without knowing how to spend it.

Elon Musk’s recent interviews included a provocative statement: “currency will disappear.” He emphasized that without humans, wealth accumulation is meaningless. In other words, money, wealth, and capital are social constructs, not objective realities. Musk seems to suggest that AI could eventually replace capitalism, with AI determining social production rather than capital.

However, he omits discussion of the ownership of means of production. If everyone owns them, that’s communism; if a few do, why would they use AI to empower the many? And if there is a “big cake” to distribute, who decides? Distribution is politics—can modern politicians handle it?

Implicit in Musk’s argument is the idea of technological equality—AI could fairly distribute power and resources. Yet history shows that every tech revolution (Web2, Web3) ultimately concentrated power in the hands of a few. Will AI be any different?

Peter Thiel, two decades ago, questioned whether modern economics could sustain modern politics. The 9/11 attacks exposed the fragility of Western political systems: capital alone cannot solve political challenges. Thiel and Musk concluded that scientific and technological progress—space exploration, life extension, curing diseases—offers a solution. Yet I remain skeptical whether society and politics can fully unleash AI’s potential.

In practical terms: if AI optimizes away all basic jobs, how will unemployed people survive? Where will taxes come from? Can AI replace capital? How will social power be distributed? These questions remain unanswered.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that AI can fully replace human intelligence. Kant’s epistemology reminds us that rationality is only one part of human cognition; AI lacks sensibility and understanding. If AI seeks to overturn capitalism, the idea of replacing humans is itself incoherent.

Ultimately, Musk’s statements are incomplete—I trust Fu Qiang more.