Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the Luddites

newyorker.com

51–60 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#51

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.

When a dollar store moves into an area, it provides most products for cheaper than an independent grocer possibly can, inevitably putting the local grocer out of business. It's sad for the grocer, but surely it's for the benefit of the community as a whole, right? Everything is cheaper! Except that the dollar store doesn't sell produce, and it just put the store that did out of business.

I see a similar trend with automation: it can do most of the job far cheaper than the specialist can, so short-term rationality says we should embrace it completely. But then the specialist goes away, and we don't have access to them anymore for the things that automation is bad at.

When you call in to customer support you can't talk to a human, because they replaced them with chat bots. When you need a good website designer because Wix won't cut it, they're out of your price range because the only ones left are working for large companies. When you want a new book, you can't find one written by a human, not because the robots have gotten as good as a good author, but because they've gotten good enough to spam the marketplaces so thoroughly that writing a good book isn't profitable anymore.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#52
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?

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#53
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not entirely fair. The main downside Capitalism has in this discussion is that the wellbeing of the people is not even one of it's stated goals. You can argue all you like about Socialism being a failed ideology, or impossibly utopian, that's it's own conversation. But it makes the common welfare a stated goal to strive for. Capitalism does not.

Capitalism's goal is to maximize the creation wealth by allowing individuals to privately hold wealth and efficiently leverage it to produce more wealth. Currently, humans are a crucial element in the production of wealth, which has allowed labor to capture some amount of that wealth for themselves. But that's not central to Capitalism. If you can generate massive amounts of wealth and give none of it to your workforce, you've succeeded at Capitalism, even if it means the 90+% of the population who don't own much capital at all starve in the streets.

In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless, moneyless society that provides to each according to their need, and each works according to their ability. Unlike Capitalism, the elimination of the necessity of labor doesn't intrinsically cause everybody to starve. It just dwindles away the necessity of the "from each according to their ability" part.

So you can argue about what other better solutions there are, but if we're pushing towards a world with less and less need for human labor, Capitalism is flatly untenable. Capitalism's answer to human labor being optional is that the former labor class dies.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#54
post #50

> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation; it suggests ignoramuses, sticks in the mud, obstacles to progress. But a new book by the journalist and author Brian Merchant, titled “Blood in the Machine,” argues that Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers above the inequitable profitability of machines. Just because Luddites were sy…

90% of people ever to exist were only looking out for themselves. The luddite claim that the industrial revolution made their life worse was absolutely not wrong, even if their actions were selfish.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#55
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…

There are many things twisted like this in our living memory and it irritates the hell out of me. How do we deal with it aside from endlessly correcting people? Indeed, Luddites weren't against technology.

The McDonald's hot coffee lady case wasn't frivolous.

"The customer is always right..."? Yeah, "... in matters of taste." It means you don't sell a customer who wants a green car a red one.

The "welfare queen" story wasn't about a woman who was lazy and collecting benefits, she just fit a profile that matched peoples' prejudice. It's difficult to stay on the government dole and there's a lot of conditions for receiving it. Defrauding them can disqualify you from further benefits or land you in the slammer. People aren't out there living the high life off of SS.

Sorry if it seems scattershot, I'm just describing other things that get twisted far away from their original circumstance, usually just to enable anti social behavior, like calling someone who takes a careful approach to technology a Luddite.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#56
post #25
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?

How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life?

Also, costs? We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#57
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it's okay to perform the harmful act, knowing the harm it will cause, as long as you leave yourself the out of being able to say it'd have come to nothing had others declined to participate? I once heard a heroin dealer make a similar claim.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#58

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.

Since when can a computer come up with a novel idea?

Do not be fooled by GPT, it's a fancy Markov chain hooked up to training data. It cannot come up with anything that wasn't already in its data set.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#59
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it people like yourself simply cannot fathom that one particular economic system could be harmful to humanity? We've managed to take a critical eye at superstition, religion, propaganda, all sorts of things. But the primary means through which inequality is carried out in society? NOOOO, leave that alone. That's perfectly fine where it is. People who align with that are profiting from capitalism.

Why is it people like yourself can not learn from history? I'm all for moving in a better healthier direction, i'm not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past. For all its failings, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of every human on this planet more than any other system before.

The burden of proof is thus on those who want to destroy it, to prove they have a viable and useful alternative that will ACTUALLY make the lives of people better. Instead, what I see is a direction that is guaranteed to lead to bloodshed and misery, with only a dreamers hope that what comes afterward is any better.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#60
post #40
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

I guess I tend to see it as an augmentation simply because I don't see much evidence of it originating expertise.

A side comment here is that I am equally skeptical that leveraging copyright work as training data is fair use. if the objective is to retrieve original copyright work, then I think its fair use, but if the goal is to draw me campaign poster in the style of Shepard Fairey, I'm not that sympathetic.

If we use AI to replace the creation of copyright free derivative works, it isn't clear what the objection should be?

Post reply on HN