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

311–320 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#311

Post by luminouslow »

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…

>the number of ways of earning a living shrinks

Is this true? it seems there are new ways cropping up all the time

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#312

Post by DonHopkins »

DonHopkins wrote: post #308
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

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

And from the opposite, lunatic, racist, misogynistic, narcissistic end of the Adams spectrum:

"If Joe Biden is elected to the White House, there’s a good chance you will be dead within the year." "Republicans will be hunted, police will stand down."

-- Scott Adams

"Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people. Just get the fuck away. I don’t think it makes any sense as a white citizen of America to try to help Black citizens any more […] I’m going to back off on being helpful to Black America because it doesn’t seem like it pays off."

-- Scott Adams

"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles."

-- Scott Adams

And from the lunatic, eccentric, enigmatic, passionate, romantic, homicidal end:

"We danced the Mamushka while Nero fiddled, we danced the Mamushka at Waterloo. We danced the Mamushka for Jack the Ripper, and now, Fester Addams, this Mamushka is for you."

-- Gomez Addams

"Fan out. Pugsley, head for the dung heap. Mama and Morticia, the shallow graves. I'll take the abyss. Lurch, check out the bottomless pit. Fester?"

-- Gomez Addams

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#313

Post by chii »

anigbrowl wrote: post #198
chii wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> maximal agency

how are the capital owners deciding what a consumer would choose to spend their money on?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#314

Post by A_non_e-moose »

WalterBright wrote: post #287
defrost wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if that's your idea of success: Based on Pew's income band classification, China's middle class has been among the fastest growing in the world, swelling from 39.1 million people (3.1 percent of the population) in 2000 to roughly 707 million (50.8 percent of the population) in 2018. https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class

China switched to free markets. They also had the advantage of technology that didn't exist in the 1800s. Before China switched to free markets, they had an equal distribution of all income economy. You might want to check it out. So, too, the USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Jamestown, Plymouth, etc.

China and free market in the same sentence is quite a paradox.

Did you mean to say they moved from a planned economy to a market economy? A market economy yes they do have, but free? Boy oh boy that it is not. Plenty of western companies wanting to enter that market are finding that out the hard way

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#315

Post by jillesvangurp »

The best way to prevent the future is to invent it.

Paraphrasing Alan Kaye here. There's a certain inevitability to AI. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. Our choices are simply to be part of this revolution or to be left behind while the likes of China and others, not blocked by mildly hysterical ethical activists protesting their own irrelevance, plow ahead. It's really that simple.

I call out China here because 1) they have lots of people actually working on AI. 2) a lot of the hardware we use for AI is actually being created there. 3) they have a history of getting stuff done once they decide they want to do something.

Delaying tactics, insisting it is done right, getting upset about things changing, fearing the loss of control, and similar sentiments simply aren't constructive. It's not going to stop this. If you want it done right, make sure you are involved in the doing.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#316

Post by yMEyUyNE1 »

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?

Enterprise is created to provide a beneficial service to the society/humanity/world. Profit is a means to sustain the people, who are working in the enterprise, and subsequently the enterprise. The problem starts when some smartass in power becomes greedy and turns an enterprise for service to people into an enterprise ONLY for profit. If you only want to make money, work in a govt mint.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#317

Post by meheleventyone »

ogogmad wrote: post #88
zlg_codes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think China and Russia aren't capitalistic in nature? They structure their markets very much like the West, because they end up having to do business with the West at some points. Do you really think there isn't a better system than accepting that some other human out there is going to get more out of your work than you? In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness…

> In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness and hunger. We have the means, but capitalism says "no, people must not be allowed to survive without working for others". There's unemployment benefit. In the UK, that's £85 a week. There's also council housing.

Which works famously well… err.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#318

Post by fhd2 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #315

The best way to prevent the future is to invent it. Paraphrasing Alan Kaye here. There's a certain inevitability to AI. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. Our choices are simply to be part of this revolution or to be left behind while the likes of China and others, not blocked by mildly hysterical ethical activists protesting their own irrelevance, plow ahead. It's really that simple. I call out China here because…

I'm not aware of anyone who wants to "prevent AI" - as incredibly ambiguous as that phrase is.

What I suppose some people worry about is stuff like:

1. That they will have some means of feeding themselves and their families going forward

2. That they won't be at the whim of increasingly totalitarian (and arbitrary) governments with increasing power

3. That they will continue to find human connection

4. That they won't be overwhelmed by lots of crap content

If someone _thinks_ there's a problem, there _is_ a problem: It's pretty tricky to talk people out of their fears. You can tell them to shut up, or you can address their fears and make them feel better about the future. That typically includes putting some checks and balances in place, as well as adjusting their expectations.

China started doing mass surveillance early on, they're probably better at the technologies involved than the average country. By your logic, other countries should stop whining about it and start doing the same (or more), to not be left behind. I don't think everyone needs to do the worst thing that's technically possible to do. Sometimes those things aren't even all that beneficial for the success of a country, which I'd measure in citizen satisfaction and safety from hostile countries ultimately.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#319

Post by WalterBright »

A_non_e-moose wrote: post #314
WalterBright wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China switched to free markets. They also had the advantage of technology that didn't exist in the 1800s. Before China switched to free markets, they had an equal distribution of all income economy. You might want to check it out. So, too, the USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Jamestown, Plymouth, etc.

China and free market in the same sentence is quite a paradox. Did you mean to say they moved from a planned economy to a market economy? A market economy yes they do have, but free? Boy oh boy that it is not. Plenty of western companies wanting to enter that market are finding that out the hard way

Nothing human is ever perfect. Markets work better the more free they are. China went for free markets, and it paid off spectacularly.

Socialism gets steadily worse the closer to "true" socialism it gets.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#320

Post by yolkedgeek »

Being opposed to technology is something I don't understand. I'm a software engineer; and if some day AI can fully replace me, that is a "me" problem. I should be able to bring value, I should be able to adapt. When horses where THE way of transportation, there were hundreds of jobs, and thousands of workers supporting the horse industry. creating stables, blacksmiths, vets, etc. but in a matter of couple of decades, the horses were replaced by cars. now Imagine if those people started wrecking cars and car factories. over time, if someone is fully unable to adapt to progress and wants to keep going his way, he will be eliminated by the survival of the fittest. and those who were able to adapt, found other jobs that they could bring value in. For example many of the blacksmiths became mechanics.

If an artist can lose his job to AI, it means he was never anything more than a weaker version of AI. you can't be angry because someone does your job better than you and for cheaper.

Should we regulate and control the advancements, so something like the atomic bombs, like hiroshima doesn't happen with AI? Absolutely yes. Should we have our guards up and say AI is bad, it will be end of us, etc.? No. opposing progress is something that humans have always loved to do.

Post reply on HN