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

131–140 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#131

Post by TA23091417 »

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…

Subsistence farming would not take 18hr days if peasants were not required to spend the first 12hrs farming cash crops for the landlord, as the price for allowing them to farm actual food on his second rate plots.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#132

Post by robbintt »

Gigachad wrote: post #91
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.

Reality is that it didn't cost any jobs. Everyone just moved up to making things more complex than what Wix can do. I don't feel my life is any worse off having moved from building static marketing pages to complex web apps.

It definitely reduced the amount and complexity of work there is to do. So, in a static market, it reduced the number of workers. It's hard to see in tech which is an expanding market.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#133

Post by epolanski »

fatherzine wrote: post #120
ehnto wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To sell to who? If no one has income, who buys the things?

Income can be generated politically, see e.g. Soviet command economy.

In Soviet economy virtually all people had a job though. In communist Poland where I grew, safe for the years of martial law in mid 80s everyone who wanted a job had one.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#134

Post by epolanski »

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…

> People bring the value that they generate for an economy.

Nurses, teachers? Those bring insane value but get little recognition, in all senses, for that.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#135

Post by danuker »

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.

I see many problems with this statement:

- Is a new robot-only company fairer than firing humans at an old company?

- Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed?

- Should there be a robot tax? What is a robot? Is my calculator a robot that keeps an arithmeticist out of a job?

- Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit?

In my view, we should automate as much as we can, because we spend less valuable human time on what is achievable by machine. However, as more and more people fall behind as technology progresses, it might pose a problem, so I think we should institute basic income.

I wouldn't bother with regulating the minutia, just tax Laffer-optimally and give out benefits so as not to create perverse incentives.

But I am keen to know someone's thoughts to the contrary.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#136

Post by hexage1814 »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #54
Aunche wrote: 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.

>The luddite claim that the industrial revolution made their life worse was absolutely not wrong

So what? How is this even relevant? ATM machines also made the lives of bank tellers worse cause they lost their jobs. As well as the countless automations that happened. "Oh, better stop all technological progress to ensure I have a job", it doesn't work like this, it never did, and anyone who tried this failed miserably because it is selfish and it doesn't work. What matters is that society as a whole was better after every automation. Honestly this whole whining about automation NOW is mainly white collar workers, such as journalists and artists, throwing a hissy fit and asking for special protection because they feel like their job is """"really special"""" unlike other peoples job, it's not like other people have bills to pay and stuff.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#137

Post by fallingknife »

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…

I can't think of any human society in all of history where I would have more control over my life than I do now.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#138

Post by mullingitover »

Counterpoint to fears of losing the drudgery we're entitled to: once the value of labor has evaporated, and we still have the masses controlling the ballot box, we may finally achieve Fully Automated Luxury Communism[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communi...

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#139

Post by numpad0 »

fiftyfifty wrote: post #99
JohnFen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Companies already send that clear message even without AI. That's why there's fear here: we expect companies to behave as they always have, and that is with a level of contempt for human workers.

What about as consumers then? Without workers who's going to buy anything? We have some serious logistics to figure out if we automate the majority of jobs away, and yet somehow all these companies are expecting people to still be able to buy their products.

Work and value are consitantly redefined to exclude automatable parts. Peanut butter could become free but sandwiches won't be. Or if sandwiches becone free the recipe remains nonfree.

Ultimately the fact that you an individual intended to intend an intention continues to hold a $1 value represented in metal coins until the last of us joins the rest in pickle jars.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#140

Post by epolanski »

ta8645 wrote: post #36
username135 wrote: post #30

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.

Capitalism clearly does not work. It's destroying the planet, making people stupid, numb and distracted and it is very inefficient at allocating resources for anything that doesn't generate profit.

That being said, I know no better alternative, albeit I think high automation may make some solutions feasible.

Post reply on HN