Rethinking the Luddites
newyorker.com
Rethinking the Luddites
1–10 of 572 posts
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#2History is written by the victors. I hadn’t heard about the Luddite movement until recently but had known of the slang for years. This book argues we might see the term reclaimed by those who have suddenly lost value from the emergence of AI.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#3There's plenty of rhetoric about whether technology advancements will be a good thing or not. But I think that distracts from the core message, that the most important matter is not whether we use technology, but how we treat our fellow humans.
By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring.
We have a mandate for us and our future generations to learn from the lessons of history and stand together as human beings to ensure that the value that we have created is respected and shared with those who created it.
We don't deserve the scraps that fall to us, we deserve a seat at the damn table.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#4I thought that this had been the conventional view for a while now. Certainly it is what i have believed for many years, that the Luddites were reacting to iniquitous working practices and market forces.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#5At least the Luddites eventually had other work to go to. This time around I'm not so sure of that.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#6This version of the Luddites is the one I was taught in my history classes—in both HS and college my teachers were careful to emphasize that the colloquial usage and the actual movement are only loosely related, and we discussed how the Luddites weren't rejecting technology per se so much as they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life.
This is certainly something worth learning from today, and a new book bringing this interpretation to more people is worthwhile, but it's not a novel take on the movement, just an attempt to reclaim the colloquial phrase.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#7I thought that this had been the conventional view for a while now. Certainly it is what i have believed for many years, that the Luddites were reacting to iniquitous working practices and market forces.
You are definitely correct, but there is a popular perception that Luddites are just reactionarily "opposing progress" because it hurts their own personal interests.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#8There's plenty of rhetoric about whether technology advancements will be a good thing or not. But I think that distracts from the core message, that the most important matter is not whether we use technology, but how we treat our fellow humans. By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. We have a mandate for us…
The people in positions of power are going to treat their fellow humans as poorly as they can get away with. That's how they got their positions of power.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#9I'm not observing a situation of people massively losing their jobs or losing money. If you do, feel free to share your experience. So far, the AI technology has been a nice toy/support for the people.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#10History is written by the victors. I hadn’t heard about the Luddite movement until recently but had known of the slang for years. This book argues we might see the term reclaimed by those who have suddenly lost value from the emergence of AI.
History is written by whoever signs the check, and the popular perception of the Luddites reflects that.