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

431–440 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#431

Post by [deleted] »

ojo-rojo wrote: post #333
fhd2 wrote: post #318

Earlier 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'…

What about this guy: "the most likely result of building a superhumanly smart AI, under anything remotely like the current circumstances, is that literally everyone on Earth will die" "Shut down all the large GPU clusters...be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike" https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no...

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#432

Post by [deleted] »

creer wrote: post #264

The luddite example is one of suddenness: The owners see the massive advantage of mechanization and move in fast. The workers are blindsided - they don't have the time and spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war. The regions are somewhat mono-industry which completes in making a giant mess. All in all the exact quandary not to get caught in. Now that they have demonstrated it, long ago, do we really have t…

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#433

Post by creer »

xorcist wrote: post #417
creer wrote: post #264

The luddite example is one of suddenness: The owners see the massive advantage of mechanization and move in fast. The workers are blindsided - they don't have the time and spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war. The regions are somewhat mono-industry which completes in making a giant mess. All in all the exact quandary not to get caught in. Now that they have demonstrated it, long ago, do we really have t…

Your comments fall into exactly the trap the article talks about. The luddites were painted as being against automation. That's only partially true, at best. Destroying machines was not the point. It was just the only thing that hurt and got remembered. It was not layoffs that caused the revolts much worsening working conditions. They wanted things like getting paid in the promised time frame, and not having their ch…

> It was not layoffs that caused the revolts much worsening working conditions.

I read the article (twice - it's interesting), and I wrote "spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war".

For the workers of the time it looked probably like a fast combination of things. Which the author kinda summarizes as "the inequitable profitability of machines". Things likely included: at first a boom in employment: the factories started at the same time the old, somewhat distributed production method mostly continued - but probably with minimal worker freedom of choice as to who went to which. Then layoffs as the old method just about disappears and more factories start or fail in seemingly (to the workers) random occurences. Then working conditions as factories no doubt did not start safe or comfortable. Then like you say every complaint under the sun.

I don't think it matters actually: the workers reacted to upheaval and probably felt they had no time to be heard. That's the complaint we hear now: "The current jobs are going and that's not right". That's the point of my response: "How does that help anything or anyone?". The lesson should be to try responses that actually have a chance to succeed as opposed to getting in the papers for (metaphorically) breaking frames. Denmark and Co seem to have thought up something in the right general direction.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#434

Post by creer »

hef19898 wrote: post #389
makeitdouble wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well put. To note, luddites' issues were not just losing their job. Let's remember that the earlier machines were very crude, safety was absolutely not in their design, and a worker life's also didn't have much weight. So, the early days of machine assisted production were in inhumane conditions, people losing limbs, kids getting killed in them (less skills needed also meant kid labour was a viable option) etc. So ye…

Even more cynical, small kids were sent into said machines to conduct maintenance while the machine was running !

Yes to this chain. Noticing this absurd lack of machine safety and doing something about it would have helped everyone. And the government reaction to the whole thing was equally absurd.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#435

Post by heavyset_go »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #344
ImHereToVote wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China actually has regulation for safe AI. It's hard to say how "safe" that regulation is. But it's better than what US is doing with OpenAI. Essentially do whatever lol. https://www.lw.com/admin/upload/SiteAttachments/Chinas-New-A...

They also use AI to monitor and police their own citizens. AI serves the common good there and is a tool that is wielded by the elite that dictates what that common good is. Nominally in their subject's name of course. But it's not a democracy.

If you look inside police departments, courtrooms, etc, you'll find a lot of AI in the US. That includes monitoring. Cities like NYC are under constant surveillance on the street, below the street and in the air. Even outside of the cities, Ring, for example, partners with police departments to deploy Ring cameras that they can access from people's doors.

And that's just surface level government usage. Go on, in, or near any of the "elite's" assets, and you will be recorded and analyzed from a dozen angles, whether those assets are physical or digital.

The monitoring infrastructure might be largely built and/or deployed by private companies, but those companies know who their paying customers are: entities that are governmental, non-governmental and entities that blur the lines, that want to monitor and police citizens.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#436

Post by notsurenymore »

hef19898 wrote: post #390
tibbydudeza wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the mantra of some in the tech field of "no problem - just learn to code" when blue collar jobs in the manufacturing in the US was on the wane as production moved to cheaper locations overseas.

So, can we use "just learn to use promps" for white collar folks and software devs risk loosing their jobs because of AI?

I thought it was “just go into the trades”.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#437

Post by jwie »

When a capitalist degrades his products to ensure profits it’s good for the economy and he’s a captain of industry.

When the worker degrades technology to ensure a job he’s a Luddite and terrorist.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#438

Post by devinjon »

xorcist wrote: post #417
creer wrote: post #264

The luddite example is one of suddenness: The owners see the massive advantage of mechanization and move in fast. The workers are blindsided - they don't have the time and spend all the time they do have in a ludicrous war. The regions are somewhat mono-industry which completes in making a giant mess. All in all the exact quandary not to get caught in. Now that they have demonstrated it, long ago, do we really have t…

Your comments fall into exactly the trap the article talks about. The luddites were painted as being against automation. That's only partially true, at best. Destroying machines was not the point. It was just the only thing that hurt and got remembered. It was not layoffs that caused the revolts much worsening working conditions. They wanted things like getting paid in the promised time frame, and not having their ch…

At times, the destruction was also quite utilitarian. For example, if you destroyed a piece of agricultural equipment, and it took three months to get another one up from London, you and your chums had work for the season. That's an entirely rational course of action (though not necessarily the most effective or moral one).

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#439

Post by brvsft »

zlg_codes wrote: post #68
janalsncm wrote: post #28

99% invisible had Brian Merchant on recently. I agree with him except on the point that “Luddite” can be reclaimed. In an ideal world that would be possible, but in practical terms Luddite means a person who is against technological change. If you want to defend Luddite positions you don’t need to defend the term itself. Then the correct retort would be I’m not a Luddite I’m an X where X is something intuitive and sh…

I like to characterize my approach to technology as "informed carefulness". So maybe "I'm a cautious adopter of technology. I adopt what works, what improves my life, and respects my rights." The violation of people's trust through the use of telemetry is precisely what turned me skeptical of modern day stuff. There's a lot of stuff that I would probably use, if it wasn't hellbent on learning the color of my underwea…

This reminds me that I find it hilarious when they ask permission to collect more data on you so they can make the ads "more relevant." This is close to their version of mutual respect, "We'll show you the ads you WANT to see."

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#440

Post by booleandilemma »

bamboozled wrote: post #414
throwuwu wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah woah woah buddy you’ve got that completely backwards. Journalists started that whole learn to code bullshit and then got justly lampooned about it when there were a bunch of media lay offs afterwards. It was a huge meme a while back so I’m not sure how you missed it.

It doesn’t matter who said it, people bought it, used it and spread it.

Yeah but he's correcting the parent, who said "the mantra of some in the tech field", which is wrong.
Post reply on HN