Directly make me think about Bill Joy: Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us
https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2014/12/02/bill-joy-why-the-fut...
Rethinking the Luddites
321–330 of 572 posts
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#322Earlier 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?
Profit can easily be redistributed.
It’s better to have a machine that makes 100 cakes for 100 people with only 2 people working than to employ all 100 people without the machine to make 4 cakes.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#323The 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'…
I've seen many people on Twitter and Reddit calling for a total ban of image generators, because they take away jobs from artists. Yes - they think that even "ethical" models from Adobe and Getty should be banned.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#324There'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…
Did anyone care about welders who got replaced, because robots are much better at welding car frames together?
Only now when "prestigious" white collar positions are being threatened people are starting to freak out.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#325Being 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,…
I think the problem isn't with technology, it's with a certain brand of technological “disruption” that doesn't actually advance anything forward but simply shifts work, energy and capital elsewhere, or worse, externalises costs, e.g. Uber.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#326Earlier 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.
Idk about you, but I travel to different countries and have fun when I'm on vacation.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'…
I've seen many people on Twitter and Reddit calling for a total ban of image generators, because they take away jobs from artists. Yes - they think that even "ethical" models from Adobe and Getty should be banned.
If nobody addresses their fears in a reasonable fashion, I guess they're gonna find their own solutions. Like smashing machines according to TFA.
But that's a specific subset of generative AI they object to. Maybe there are people who oppose _all AI_ (including symbolic AI like pathfinding algorithms), but I'm not aware of any.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#328It'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…
> sat back
I'd say it's more than sitting back. Complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs or immigrants competing for jobs and housing is seen to be poor peoples' game. The middle class want to be (seen to be) wealthy and educated so they'll signal that these trends are nothing to worry about because it's only an issue for the plebs and they're definitely not a pleb with this opinion.
Every technology has it's equal and opposite force.
Smart phones result in dumber people with lower attention spans. Medicine has taken away most evolutionary selection pressure. Modern agriculture paired with car culture means a lot of us are unfit and overweight. Social media makes people less socially connected and promotes unrealistic beauty standards.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#329Earlier 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?
Adams assumed that a widespread immoral conduct can make life miserable for everyone and predicted that in such scenario a weakly governed country is more vulnerable than a strictly governed one.
> Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by [...] morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or [amorous] galantry, would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Re: Rethinking the Luddites
#330> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation
Interesting, I never thought of the term as pejorative. I always thought of the movement as a kind of working-class heroes trying to navigate an uncertain future where rich people made them obsolete.