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

81–90 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#81

Post by kevinventullo »

zlg_codes wrote: post #46
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…

Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology, and accusations of "Luddite" at the slightest hint of not being 100% on board with the latest fad technology make this discussion seem in bad faith. Most techies I know do not have a skeptical eye for technology, even though IMO they should. This shit is being used to spy on and manipulate us with the data t…

My view of the culture says techies never say no to new shiny

The only people I know who remotely care about things like data privacy and GDPR are techies. I personally will never install a “smart home” device.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#82

Post by [deleted] »

ta8645 wrote: post #62
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#83

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#84

Post by Syonyk »

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…

> Imagine if we were all working 18 hour subsistence farming jobs now just to survive...

Then you definitely shouldn't look at actual reports of time spent, leisure time, etc, in those eras.

Because that's nothing at all what life was in the eras you're thinking of.

How much of our modern time - work hours - do we spend to maintain the cars we take to work, and the large houses we were convinced to buy "as an investment," etc? Or just our personal tech stacks that always somehow seem to need replacement?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#85

Post by [deleted] »

zlg_codes wrote: post #58
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#86

Post by _aavaa_ »

zlg_codes wrote: post #46
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…

Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology, and accusations of "Luddite" at the slightest hint of not being 100% on board with the latest fad technology make this discussion seem in bad faith. Most techies I know do not have a skeptical eye for technology, even though IMO they should. This shit is being used to spy on and manipulate us with the data t…

luddites were not skeptical of technology, or even against it. They were against the way in which factory owners used technology to illegally displace them (as workers) and to falsely advertise the resulting textiles (selling low quality goods while claiming they were of higher quality) in order to undercut them and put them out of business.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#88

Post by ogogmad »

zlg_codes wrote: post #73
ta8645 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Do you think China and Russia aren't capitalistic in nature? They structure their markets very much like the West, because they end up having to do business with the West at some points. Do you really think there isn't a better system than accepting that some other human out there is going to get more out of your work than you? In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness…

> In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness and hunger. We have the means, but capitalism says "no, people must not be allowed to survive without working for others".

There's unemployment benefit. In the UK, that's £85 a week. There's also council housing.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#89

Post by gadflyinyoureye »

pydry wrote: post #77
mulmen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a nice sentiment but labor doesn’t create value in a world of robots. We need a radically different system of wealth allocation.

1) We need a radically different one now - one that shifts the burden *off" labor and back on to asset owners - especially land owners (there is literally only an economic upside to taxing them more). 2) somebody still has to fix those robots. 3) if control over the economy were wrested from oligarchs and were put under democratic control, the economy wouldnt be geared towards frittering away billions on trying to de…

I take issue with point three. Assuming that democratization of private goods is a good thing, we’d want to deskill so to speak. We’d want to pursue automation. I doubt the majority of citizens would want know how to maintain the automation.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#90

Post by atleastoptimal »

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.

The thing is we can't help but compare people on the value that they bring. We can't go on about human value being tied to our creativity, emotional sensitivity, or any skill because once AI can do that, that value goes out the window for humans. Humans have to be valuable for no other reason than the fact that they are human, even if they technically are a burden. This is the only mentality that will keep humans safe in the AI apocalypse.

Post reply on HN