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

191–200 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#191

Post by cm2012 »

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…

Yes, and factories are a good thing for every other country as well. Why have 1b Chinese moved from rural farm life to city factory life? Because rural farm life is unimaginably shitty in pretty much every way.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#192

Post by paxys »

labrador wrote: post #112

I like to imagine a world where people don't have to work or worry about health care. It's all done by AI and robots. People are free to pursue their hobbies and other interests. How would we treat each then? Would we still be in terrible conflict with hate and prejudice prevalent?

Go back a hundred years or so and describe advancements such as organ transplants, DNA sequencing, insulin, pacemakers, the MRI machine, mRNA and more to the common people and they would think we were all living in a post-disease utopia. In reality a very tiny percent of the world has access to any of this medical progress.

Technological innovation is not enough. We also need the political will to ensure equitable distribution, otherwise it will create a yet bigger gulf between the haves and have nots.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#193

Post by jprete »

Aerroon wrote: post #159
zlg_codes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

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

This is totally, completely, utterly irrelevant to the GP's point.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#194

Post by cm2012 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #31
czl wrote: 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?

Halting technological process is way way more costly for humanity than the alternative.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#195

Post by jmye »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #122
ta8645 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

It's not about lofty idealism. It's about central goals. Sometimes, even oftentimes, goals are failed to be met. But, when it comes time to sacrifice something, it's invariable that a side effect will be cut rather than the central goal. Look at a company. The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company nee…

> The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money".

Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion?

This is a reductive and ridiculous take. The real world isn’t Soc101 or a poor reading of Marx, nor is it black and white.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#196

Post by bamboozled »

chii wrote: post #179
__loam wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> hurts their models unless the AI models surpass a certain critical point, with which new and original works could be generated without using original human derived works. aka, an AGI.

This is the ultimate big tech play.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#197

Post by Nursie »

harerazer wrote: post #184
paxys wrote: post #170

It's telling that this anti-automation and anti-AI movement is finally reaching its crescendo now that creative and white collar jobs are under threat. These same people writing books about the evils of AI sat back over the last few decades as countless factory jobs, farm jobs, retail jobs and even "lower class" intellectual jobs (like bookkeepers, travel agents and telephone operators) were automated away. "It's jus…

To be fair, I don’t think its so much about white collar jobs being under threat as it is about creative jobs being under threat. Many creative pursuits are viewed as an outlet of human expression in a way that other jobs never were, and I think this is what is driving the new wave of the Resistance^TM

I enjoyed seeing a meme the other day (rare for me to enjoy!) that summed it up as something like -

"Having to do manual labour to make ends meet while the robots paint and write poetry was not the future I had in mind".

And I think that sums up the feeling quite well. I do agree that automation in general has not paid off in the way the utopians would predict - instead of freeing humanity from the need to work, we have disenfranchised large portions of the population. That said, more people than ever (in the west) are freed from manual labour, and are working historically shorter hours for better quality of life than ever before. But the fruits of our productivity gains are not distributed equally and it is all too easy to imagine a future in which it is the owners of the smart systems who reap all the rewards, with everyone else fighting for scraps.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#198

Post by anigbrowl »

chii wrote: post #180
_aavaa_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The customer is responsible for accepting the level of quality of said goods. And it seems overwhelmingly that they (thru their action, rather than words), prefer to have cheaper, lower quality goods as long as it passes some threshold. Therefore, if a machine surpasses this threshold, they will win marketshare.

It's fascinating to me how capital owners are never ever responsible for anything despite having maximal agency.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#199

Post by bamboozled »

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…

Have you ever seen with your own eyes a farmer working 18 hours a day ?

My theory is the 18 hour subsistence farmer story is a myth we tell ourselves that the world we’ve created is better, no questions asked.

I live in a part of the world where people do a surprising amount of farming by hand. Very little machines and almost no fertiliser is used. No one, absolutely no one is working 18 hours. Mostly they have busy springs, relaxing summers and festivals for autumn harvest. Most farmers are in their 70s so they’re not looking to work hard either.

I’m sure subsistence farmers existed, but they likely worked hard because they weren’t educated well. I bet there have always been some higher quality farming going on.

I’ve also stayed with a remote Aboriginal tribe in Australia. I have to be honest they had very relaxed lifestyles.

We bag out the last to make ourselves feel better about the future we’re creating. We’re insecure.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#200

Post by goatlover »

SoftTalker wrote: post #172
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 beco…

He wasn't the only one. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

A constitution needs to take into account all sorts of people or it's inadequate. All societies have a mix, and the religiously moral ones have their notable failings.
Post reply on HN