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

291–300 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#291

Post by android521 »

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…

there are already plenty of evidence to suggest that we, collectively, don't treat our fellow humans well. There are tens of millions of people who are on survival mode and most of people living in developed countries simply don't care much , including you and me. You absolutely cannot rely on humans to treat each other well. In the AI age, it will mostly benefit those who have capital to employ an army of AIs. It is hard to believe our politicians will do anything drastic but only drastic changes will matter (like universal income or very high tax for wealthy people who no long rely on labors). Dark times ahead.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#292

Post by galaxyLogic »

__loam wrote: post #174
Aerroon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I've seen this argument be made a lot in the past year, that "Oh these things are just tools and you are an idiot for having a critical view on them". I've been thinking a lot about this and I've come to the conclusion that it's based on a flawed understanding of economics, and of quality generally. Do we measure software engineers in terms of their lines of code per day? I feel that this is basically what you and ot…

Your comment makes me think of Hollywood writer's strike. I congratulate them for getting a better deal. But do we really need more Hollywood?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#293

Post by esafak »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #290
SoftTalker wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think Adams is wrong. Constitution was made (I believe) to deter immoral people who would like to get rid of the constitution, who would love to establish a dictatorship, who would love to force a specific religion on all of us. Moral people don't really need laws, laws exist to deter crime. Frankly I don't get what John Adams was trying say? Can someone explain?

I take it to mean immoral people can make mincemeat out of the best government.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#294

Post by thuuuomas »

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…

> that labour can be reallocated further up the value chain

Not in America - upskilling workers is too expensive.

Displaced workers are gonna break rocks in debtor’s prisons & the median voter already thinks they deserve it.

AI will bring mass downward mobility.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#295

Post by galaxyLogic »

pixl97 wrote: post #214
SoftTalker wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the pharaohs today? That sort of social imbalance leads inevitably to revolution. Always has. It's not sustainable.

The pharaohs of today? They are launching war against their neighbors in Ukraine.

Right, the problem I see is that dictators like to help each other. It is in their interest to make deals with other dictators because they can, rather than their own people, which they can't unless they allow free elections. For instance Trump's best friends seem to be Putin and other autocrats. Why is that? Because they can make deals with each other, to suppress democracy everywhere.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#296

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

cm2012 wrote: post #194
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is an assertion made, necessarily, without evidence. It's also value laden in terms of what is considered "costly", and who should make the judgement.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#297

Post by junofan »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #290
SoftTalker wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think Adams is wrong. Constitution was made (I believe) to deter immoral people who would like to get rid of the constitution, who would love to establish a dictatorship, who would love to force a specific religion on all of us. Moral people don't really need laws, laws exist to deter crime. Frankly I don't get what John Adams was trying say? Can someone explain?

He was pissed off at France after his stint in Europe and thought the Cult of Reason was fake as hell. He wasn’t talking about a dictatorship but rather subversion of religion and using fancy words to enrich a political class. He thought trade and commerce was a better approach to getting rich.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#298

Post by diffeomorphism »

SoftTalker wrote: post #177
danuker wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My worry exactly! Ideally we should need no jobs, and machines should do all the work.

Have you seen what people do when they have nothing to do? Be careful what you wish for. ChatGPT notwithstanding, we're a long way from a Star Trek post-scarcity world.

So give everybody a 30 hour week to start. Sudden transitions have lots of friction, so do it gradually.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#299

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

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?

False dichotomy + poorly statistically worded.

The proper question is always "Would society be better off at the margin with more automation". The answer someday may well be "No, because many people are already unemployed, and this will exacerbate that even further", but there's no reason to add that clause to the question.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#300

Post by epolanski »

nemo44x wrote: post #207
epolanski wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In our modern economy everyone that wants a job has one. Unemployment is extremely low and has been.

That's only true of the US in this very moment, it's not a property of capitalism per se.
Post reply on HN