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

301–310 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#301

Post by sp527 »

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.

For real. As just one example, retirement homes routinely increase rates in tandem with increases to social security. Yet people here somehow think basic income will work out just fine. It's laughably naive.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#302

Post by btschaegg »

bfung wrote: post #285
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 an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Should an AI created to make paper clips consider other values than making paper clips? https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-pa... Diving all the way down ad absurdum: What's the point of maximizing profit if there are no humans to utilize those profits?

Obligatory mention of Charles Stross' talk where he knits together exactly those two thoughts.

"Dude, you broke the future": https://youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#303

Post by sambazi »

antupis wrote: post #289
Nursie wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I have visited several art exhibitions this year and generally would say that stuff at front page of /r/StableDiffusion/ is just more original and better than some random art exhibition.

"Stop staring at my hands"

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#304

Post by TotalCrackpot »

raincole wrote: post #208
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…

> Just because Luddites were sympathetic doesn't change the fact that they were wrong. They didn't care for the welfare of workers in general so much as they were looking out for themselves. Unions don't fight for the welfare of workers in general. They fight for their members and their members only. So thank you for your strong anti-union speech, I guess.

Unions like IWW fight for all workers, cause they want to end whole wage work.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#305

Post by mplewis »

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…

The Luddites weren't wrong.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#306

Post by mplewis »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #9

I'm not observing a situation of people massively losing their jobs or losing money. If you do, feel free to share your experience. So far, the AI technology has been a nice toy/support for the people.

Are you not? Over 50% of people in the USA are living paycheck to paycheck with no emergency fund. Perhaps look a little harder.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#307

Post by lynx23 »

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…

Ahh, entitlement. I find it somewhat confusing that people seem to treat the AI and robot era as if it were anything new. Workers are being replaced by machines since, what, 50 to 100 years? It is happening in stages, but... I just watched a old TV-series (Büro Büro[1]) from the 80s, and guess what, replacing human workforce with computers was already a topic back then. AI is just the new type of robot, but we have been doing this since decades. It is a bit like with climate change. We are aware that our way of life is not sustainable since roughly 40 to 50 years. In both cases, young people today behave like these problems are new. They aren't. Going back to the job market, automation is a result of technological advancements. Doomsayers like to point out it is taking work away from humans, while optimists focus on a future where nobody has to do anything while still getting money for nothing... Both sides are likely wrong. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCro,_B%C3%BCro

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#308

Post by DonHopkins »

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

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

-- Douglas Adams

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#309

Post by surfingdino »

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.

Compensation doesn't fix the problem. As more and more jobs get replaced with AI or robots, the number of ways of earning a living shrinks and people have no money to buy the products and services offered by the AI-poweered industrial complex. It's a problem that the billionaire gods don't want to see. The politicians don't have a clue how to address it either.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#310

Post by ithkuil »

surfingdino wrote: post #309
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. Compensation doesn't fix the problem. As more and more jobs get replaced with AI or robots, the number of ways of earning a living shrinks and people have no money to buy the products and services offered by the AI-poweered industrial complex. It's a problem that the…

Well, billionaires may stop being billionaires when nobody can consume their product/services because they can't afford them
Post reply on HN