Rethinking the Luddites • Hacker News Board

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#151

Post by bigstrat2003 » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 12:58 AM UTC

danuker wrote: post #135

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…

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

Yes! Very much yes! Adam Smith himself noted that a capitalist enterprise, if not run according to good values (which to him meant Christian values, but it need not be that for everyone), would be a horrible thing. That hasn't really changed since. A business needs to have some values behind it other than pure profit-seeking, or else it becomes a serious ill for society.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#152

Post by DiggyJohnson » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:00 AM UTC

sublinear wrote: post #149

danuker wrote: post #135

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. 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…

> However, as more and more people fall behind as technology progresses, it might pose a problem, so I think we should institute basic income. Basic income is the most counterproductive idea possible. We should have spent more on education over 100 years ago.

Nobody has ever accused me of supporting UBI, but hardly any idea is more “counterproductive” than “we should have” done something 100 years ago.

Or maybe it’s less counterproductive, more irrelevant, if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?”

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#153

Post by talent_deprived » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:01 AM UTC

danuker wrote: post #135

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…

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

Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human.

Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#154

Post by __loam » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:01 AM UTC

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…

The development of ML to automate this stuff is especially perverse because ML can't function without the prior value created by people like artists and writers.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#155

Post by __loam » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:03 AM UTC

talent_deprived wrote: post #153

danuker wrote: post #135

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. 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…

> Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human. Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.

It's going to be funny when all these AI companies realize that hurting people who make things also hurts their models in the long run.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#156

Post by Aerroon » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

talent_deprived wrote: post #153

danuker wrote: post #135

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. 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…

> Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human. Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.

We should apply the same rule to all improvements. Can you imagine how many people we could employ if we banned all tools for digging and required everyone to dig by hand? We could literally create hundreds of millions of jobs!

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#157

Post by Aerroon » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:08 AM UTC

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.

This just sounds like rent-seeking. People should get paid, because they once upon a time had a job. Now machines do the job better and for cheaper, therefore you deserve to be paid for it?

How about the compensation is the improved products or better prices for all of society?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#158

Post by ytoawwhra92 » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:10 AM UTC

hexage1814 wrote: post #136

HDThoreaun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's quite common for modern governments to identify industries or regions which are heading towards economic decline and put in place measures to ensure the decline happens in a gradual, controlled way. This reduces a whole host of associated social problems that tend to accompany economic decline. I think it's a good thing, and I think it's probably better economically than the alternative.

> What matters is that society as a whole was better after every automation.

If your family's wealth had historically sat somewhere around the median in your society and then a major change occurred which caused your family's wealth to drop to the bottom 20% in your society, wouldn't you be angry about that? I would be. And I wouldn't be placated by assurances that society as a whole will be better off.

Not that I think demanding a halt to technological progress is a rational response (I've mentioned elsewhere I don't think that's really possible to achieve, even if we wanted to), but I understand why some people might respond that way.

The people "throwing a hissy fit" are, in my opinion, right about the problem but wrong about the solution (which is often the case). Automation rapidly making a large number of people redundant is an economic shock which can be softened via sensible intervention.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#159

Post by Aerroon » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:13 AM UTC

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…

>Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology

I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things.

>You need a nation who cares more about its people than its GDP to achieve that, and I posit no nation on Earth has that level of care for its people.

And it will come at the expense of future generations. All the advancements of yesterday are what make our modern comforts possible. If we stop that in some redistribution fantasy then tomorrow will not be an improvement over today.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#160

Post by stan3223 » Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 1:15 AM UTC

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.

Wasn't this message sent in the 80s and 90s when it was somehow acceptable to offshore manufacturing for increased bottom line devastating economies and people of small/mid size cities.