Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the Luddites

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#31

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

czl wrote: post #25
lolinder wrote: post #6

This 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…

> they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life Should I have the right to preserve my way of life when it imposes costs on others?

Should you have the right to press for changes that impose a cost on others?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#32

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #9

I'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.

For the first time in history a machine can come up with novel ideas.

Up until now, you were only really automating away the boring stuff.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#33

Post by rurp »

its_ethan wrote: post #18
mouse_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you'd find that, on average, "as poorly as they can get away with" actually does mean that they treat people quite well. I'm not sure what hierarchies you've been a part of where people actively trying to treat people poorly leads to their success - I'd wager those are few in far between in reality, and over represented in media. Maybe you're cynical about a few high profile companies or how U.S. politics app…

Look at how people are treated in places without decent labor laws or other protections. There are hundreds of millions of people right now toiling away in miserable and dangerous conditions. Middle class workers in the US and Europe are the exception, not the norm.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#34

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Animats wrote: post #17

They came for the manual laborers, and I was not a manual laborer, so I did nothing. Then they came for the skilled craftsmen, and I was not a skilled craftsman, so I did nothing. Then they came for the clerks and bookeepers, and I was not a clerk or a bookkeeper, so I did nothing. Now they've come for the chattering classes, and there is no one left to speak for me.

Sort of backwards.

First they came for the writers and illustrators, and I did nothing because I'm not a writer or an illustrator.

Then they came for the musicians, and I did nothing because I only listen to music.

Then they came for the text-dependent professional classes, and I did nothing because I'm not one of those people.

They they came for the programmers, and the plumbers sat around laughing saying "and you thought you were so much better than us!"

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#35

Post by abakker »

coolhand2120 wrote: post #14

People are happy to use tech like wix to build a web page because building web pages is hard. Virtually every designer, artist, writer, and musician, were all very happy to use wix even though it cost the jobs of legions of developers. “Finally I can do what these nerds can do without their help”. I really don’t see the difference.

I love this so much. The reality of _all_ technology is that it allows individuals to do more themselves. It condenses the knowledge domain to accomplish a task.

In my mind, there are no downsides in allowing individuals more leverage. The real downsides are with the orthogonal problem of what productivity means in civil society.

High productivity through technology is perfectly human - we're tool-builders and tool-makers. But, productivity does not absolve us of our responsibility to each other. People who suggest we should not use tools often justify their point of view with assertions of cost born by others. I am suspicious of this argument because the opportunity cost of _not_ letting people use the best tools available could be much greater. For example, had we not developed tools to create mRNA vaccines, many lives would have been lost to Covid that were saved. We don't know yet what AI will enable, but I'd rather we find out what people can achieve than focus on muddying the waters between productivity and society.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#36

Post by ta8645 »

username135 wrote: post #30
mouse_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's essentially capitalism. Profit > everything else

That's human nature. You won't get a better deal in Russia, China or any theoretical utopian civilization you dream up either. I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as hell isn't blaming everything on capitalism.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#37

Post by gunapologist99 »

w_for_wumbo wrote: post #3

There'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…

> 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.

Equal pay for robots!!

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#38

Post by adasdasdas »

> Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers above the inequitable profitability of machines

Being against the inequitable profitability of machines is just as dumb as being against technology, especially outside of a socialist context which this definitely was. It's basically crying that someone else is doing something better than you. In fact, I think being against technology wholesale is a much more defensible position since it creates an arms race, its unpredictable, it forces everyone into a lifestyle, etc.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#39

Post by winwang »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #31
czl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life Should I have the right to preserve my way of life when it imposes costs on others?

Should you have the right to press for changes that impose a cost on others?

Sure, then I won't "press". I'll just release a product and see if the market wants it.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#40

Post by lewhoo »

abakker wrote: post #35
coolhand2120 wrote: post #14

People are happy to use tech like wix to build a web page because building web pages is hard. Virtually every designer, artist, writer, and musician, were all very happy to use wix even though it cost the jobs of legions of developers. “Finally I can do what these nerds can do without their help”. I really don’t see the difference.

I love this so much. The reality of _all_ technology is that it allows individuals to do more themselves. It condenses the knowledge domain to accomplish a task. In my mind, there are no downsides in allowing individuals more leverage. The real downsides are with the orthogonal problem of what productivity means in civil society. High productivity through technology is perfectly human - we're tool-builders and tool-m…

Sure, if you look at artificial intelligence as a tool (perhaps there is still no reason not to), but the end goal here is not to assist but to replace, isn't it ?
Post reply on HN