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

61–70 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#61

Post by lewhoo »

abakker wrote: post #60
lewhoo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

None whatsoever, and I agree with everything you stated but this is right here and right now. If the technological boundary of AI had already reached its speed of light then there wouldn't be anyone raising concerns.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#62

Post by ta8645 »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #53
ta8645 wrote: 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.

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…

> In contrast, Communism's stated goal is the achievement of a classless

What good is a stated goal if the reality is the opposite? Capitalism may not have a lofty sounding goal to your ear, but the fair trade of goods and services is actually a pursuit in the betterment and empowerment of mankind. Of course, human nature gets in the way, and leads to corruption that needs to be constantly addressed and readdressed, but that will never change no matter what system you dream up.

And while capitalism isn't draped in utpoian idealism, it has the benefit of having proven to be able to lift a huge bulk of humanity out of subsistence living.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#63

Post by peteradio »

rossriley wrote: post #47
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…

People bring the value that they generate for an economy. Once they can be replaced with AI/Robots then that labour can be reallocated further up the value chain which in turn makes our economies and culture richer and more productive. Imagine if we were all working 18 hour subsistence farming jobs now just to survive, it's ridiculous to argue that eschewing automation for anything is detrimental, it only serves to e…

Bit of a rosy picture though. People aren't reallocated, instead they are fed opioids/various other drugs to death. There are very much winners and losers.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#64

Post by zlg_codes »

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.

This is a great perspective because, if humans acted rationally and ethically, it would be reality.

The problem I have with tools like that is the technical quality of the solution (which Wix seemed somewhat reasonable in its output when I briefly looked around at Wix sites) and the social effects. Putting together a Wix site and buying or downloading/installing a theme does not make you a Web developer.

You're still getting to the end goal of a site, but without the knowledge of how it works and, should it break, how to fix it, it's more of an appliance to you than an environment to express yourself. (using royal you, not you personally)

It's strange to me that people want to be able to "do what the nerds can", but don't want to put any of the effort forth. I would love to be a great drummer or saxophonist, but I recognize it would take years of effort and practice to reach that point. I could compose tracks using synthesized instruments, and that's its own music skill I guess, but it's definitely not the same as playing the instrument.

Which jobs are you referring to that were lost? The dot-com era? As far as I understand, a lot of web design firms still exist, and tons more freelancers make cash through selling custom themes for clients or packaged themes on Wordpress, small client-oriented web apps, etc. And, given that much of the market is on Web tech still, a lot of the skills from 20 years ago translate pretty well and can now be used to make software within the browser. In my own efforts to learn how to make webapps, I've only really had to learn flexbox and grid. Most of my old knowledge has carried over, with some slight modernization tweaks as necessary. It's nice to never need to float a div ever again, haha.

Having good tools that create good work is a goal I think most of us can get behind. The challenge lies in building the tools and promoting healthy culture.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#65

Post by NoThankYouTho »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #45
NoThankYouTho wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are definitely correct, but there is a popular perception that Luddites are just reactionarily "opposing progress" because it hurts their own personal interests.

"Luddites were reacting to iniquitous working practices and market forces." is the same thing as "reactionarily opposing progress because it hurts their own personal interests."

I meant to stress the "opposing progress" part of my comment. The two things are only the same if there was a universal, objective definition of progress with bettering humanity. Imposing a subjective yet "active" intent like opposing progress just obfuscates context and nuance around what's happening.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#68

Post by zlg_codes »

janalsncm wrote: post #28

99% invisible had Brian Merchant on recently. I agree with him except on the point that “Luddite” can be reclaimed. In an ideal world that would be possible, but in practical terms Luddite means a person who is against technological change. If you want to defend Luddite positions you don’t need to defend the term itself. Then the correct retort would be I’m not a Luddite I’m an X where X is something intuitive and sh…

I like to characterize my approach to technology as "informed carefulness". So maybe "I'm a cautious adopter of technology. I adopt what works, what improves my life, and respects my rights."

The violation of people's trust through the use of telemetry is precisely what turned me skeptical of modern day stuff. There's a lot of stuff that I would probably use, if it wasn't hellbent on learning the color of my underwear, how often I snore, or what products I'm interested in.

You won't catch me with a Ring camera, any Alexa device, I use uBlock, etc. There is so much more I would be comfortable using in this world of technology if there was a modicum of mutual respect.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#69

Post by zlg_codes »

ta8645 wrote: post #59
zlg_codes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> For all its failings, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of every human on this planet more than any other system before.

I'd like to see some real numbers for this. Capitalism creates inequality which even the feudal eras of various countries couldn't match. Serfs enjoyed more spare time in their day than the modern full-time worker. Granted, they had their own problems to deal with, but to pretend that capitalism is the best because it's created the most inequality (i.e. someone's hit a really high score)

Capitalism enables sociopathic behavior. In fact, it rewards it. The more profit you get from something, the better you're playing capitalism. Doesn't matter if what you're selling is remotely close to what you're charging, in value. Endless growth and profit must come from somewhere. Money and resources do not just poof into the world. Money can be printed, but that has consequences.

A corporation exploiting my labor so they can profit, and shareholders giving them money with the expectation to make more back later (i.e. gambling) is not making the world any better. It's trapping people into a cycle of giving their most valuable resource -- time -- to others of its kind that wouldn't care if they died tomorrow.

I'm not sure what an alternative would be. People act like there's only 2 or 3 systems out there. That dogmatic myopia is part of what traps us in shitty systems.

Without capitalism, I could have control over my life. Why should an economic system dominate one's waking life? Businesses are not more important than individuals. They have no more right to exist than we do.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#70

Post by ta8645 »

zlg_codes wrote: post #69
ta8645 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> For all its failings, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of every human on this planet more than any other system before. I'd like to see some real numbers for this. Capitalism creates inequality which even the feudal eras of various countries couldn't match. Serfs enjoyed more spare time in their day than the modern full-time worker. Granted, they had their own problems to deal with, but to pretend that…

> Without capitalism, I could have control over my life.

Says who? You think people in China and Russia have more control over their life than those in the west? You've still not offered anything other than wishful thinking. You've not proposed any system to replace capitalism. Ultimately you're just offering destruction, with no vision for rebuilding other than, "I hope it gives me an easier life".

Post reply on HN