Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the Luddites

newyorker.com

491–500 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#491
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life Should I have the right to preserve my way of life when it imposes costs on others?

How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life? Also, costs? We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least.

> How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life?

By preventing the others from buying the less-expensive machine made goods, thus harming their quality of life.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human. Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.

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!

> Can you imagine how many people we could employ if we banned all tools for digging and required everyone to dig by hand?

Even better, agricultural machinery. At one time > 90% of humans were unfree agricultural laborers ("unfree" = slaves, serfs, or something similar). The remaining 10% were mostly soldiers, with a thin veneer of lords and priests at the very top.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#493
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies already send that clear message even without AI. Companies are people. You are saying people running those companies are doing that to other people

Companies are not people. They are engines of economic production that use people as one of their resources.

You can conceptualice them however you want, but without people there are no companies

Companies are a completely made up concept. Made up by, you guessed it, people

People create them, people run them, people decide what to do with them

It’s the same for any organization

It’s people all the way down

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#494
post #338
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your job was X by hand and now a machine does X better what gives you the right to deny others who want to use such a machine? > The Luddites were free people who knew a trade that machines were threatening to make obsolete. Did Luddites not feel it was their right to impose costs on others to maintain their way of life? > Slave owners didn't care one iota about their livestock, they were a means to an end. Slave…

> If your job was X by hand and now a machine does X better what gives you the right to deny others who want to use such a machine? Self-preservation? Do you expect them to roll over and die? > Did Luddites not feel it was their right to impose costs on others to maintain their way of life? Did the factory owners not feel it was their right to suddenly and massively disrupt the industries that Luddites were making a…

> Self-preservation? Do you expect them to roll over and die?

Above I said “A society that leaves members behind will be out competed and replaced by societies that are smarter about this. Ditto for a society that imposes costs on others so that some group can continue to maintain some legacy way of life.” Are these ideas unreasonable? If you think they are good ideas, the rational thing to do is spread them so there is collective will to have a safety net that ensures nobody is left behind. This needs to exist and be collectively paid for ahead of time. That many do not understand this is a problem. One solution is laws like forced purchased of private vehicle insurance. Another is to include such insurance as part of citizenship which now has a higher price / taxes. What is needed are some prices signals so that those who make decisions that put them at greater risk should pay higher costs to prevent such decisions.

> Did the factory owners not feel it was their right to suddenly and massively disrupt the industries that Luddites were making a living in? What about the cost on them?

Nobody “owes” you a job. Factory owners must follow laws but are otherwise free to run factory as they like even shut it down. They are at the mercy of a market of consumers. Are you willing to pay for hand made goods / services when machine made offer better value? What do you suppose happens to a business that refuses to modernize?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth looking into Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, both from the Italian school of elitism. The overruling theme being a well connected, organized minority will always rule over a disorganized and disinterested majority. Machiavelli too had many interesting ideas, in particular how the elite moved through the various forms of government. A monarch decays into a despot and is eventually overtaken by an aristoc…

I'm really interested in these views that view these human systems almost as physical systems, with semi-legible dynamics and complex (but comprehensible) interactions, and even implications. Thus the irons laws. I'm also very taken with the idea of systems propagating themselves. Formally, this is called "autopoiesis" and is its own fascinating and related rabbit hole. The coolest thing this morning, prompted by you…

Yeah the self licking icecream cone is a classic at this point and correctly identifies one of the problems with new government (or any organization) programs/agencies/projects. Without explicit end goals and objectives that when met will trigger the dissolution of the program/agency/project as having successfully completed their mission, they end up existing to find reasons to exist. We see it everywhere today.

For example, at one point 50 years ago it was decided that we needed to do things to get more females into universities - a noble goal. So we set up a variety of things that made it more accessible to females and the things we did were successful. The way we did this is questionable (lower standards for females, in part) but they accomplished the goals. But we still have these systems setup and the people who run them have become entrenched and organized and any motion to dismantle them is met with aggression. You can extrapolate this well beyond females.

So we end up in a situation where more and more people find a prime mechanisms of elite credentialism (elite universities) as unfair and meaningless. And our pool of elites are weaker and unable to defend themselves against the rise of populism since so many of them aren't actually elites in reality, even if they pretend they are or believe they are being oblivious to all the artificial mechanisms that put them there in the first place.

Anyways, the book "The Machiavellians" is a good read. https://www.amazon.com/Machiavellians-Defenders-Freedom-Jame...

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#496
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.

I also don't agree with the characterization of unions as heroic for the same reason, but at least, they don't typically intentionally destroy factories.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#497
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of a company is to make money. Not all companies are successful: lots of companies fail to make money. But, when push comes to shove, and a company needs to choose between "make money" and something else, say, a commitment to not being evil, the company will choose "make money". Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? This is a reductive and ridiculous…

> Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small busine…

Why is a non-profit or small business not capitalist? I feel like the latter, especially, is a weird stretch.

Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue.

Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it’s not capitalist, by your definition, what is it? Why are its shareholders not replacing the board on a daily basis until someone makes it profitable?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#498
So essentially the modern framing of the luddite movement is a giant strawman argument mischaracterizing labor as being against technology when in reality they were just trying to figure out how to survive in a world where their work and livelihoods were made redundant practically overnight.

The same will happen to modern wage labor due to AI. Automation will not be a sudden an obvious moment (eg. Google deciding to lay off every software engineer), rather it will be a slow hemorrhaging of the working class where vast swaths of workers will be laid off, and unable to find work of similar pay and stability ever again. The job market will continue to get exponentially more and more competitive, and the illusion of stability will collapse. This same trend has already been playing out over the last few decades, but the pace at which it's playing out is now accelerating exponentially.

Because jobs will still exist, the status quo "just re-train them" optimists will remain ignorant and in denial, clinging to old models of the past. They'll say ridiculous things like "we can re-train the bus drivers by teaching them how to code", or "just teach illustrators how to prompt".

Of course advancing technology should be a good thing, and with the modern technology we have now we already could afford a society of leisure and abundance. But our current capitalist system drains most people of the time/energy for big picture thinking (unrelated to making a buck), and our representative democracy (compared to direct or delegative democracy) further discourages political participation from regular people who aren't wealthy enough to have the abundance of leisure and financial security required to think about anything other than money.

The result is that governments only serve the interests of the wealthy, while providing only an illusion of representing the masses. The rigidity and inflexibility of government systems means that nothing will change short of a revolution.

The easiest and simplest policy change that can be made to alleviate job loss + destitution from AI and to reframe AI automation from a game with winners + losers to a game where everyone wins is to implement a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Think we can't afford a UBI? Fine. Start small, and peg it to the revenues of something specific like a Land Value Tax (Henry George's "citizen's dividend"). Watch society not collapse and everyone be happier (eg. like when COVID forced employers to allow more remote work) as society collectively moves up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The increasing abundance of leisure will start the flywheel towards increasing political participation and representation of the people, systemic political reform towards delegative democracy (liquid democracy), and the next evolution of the human species in the "AI Age".

Until then, the only way to safeguard yourself from the AI automation wave is to achieve financial independence and to fully embrace AI, since workers who know how to leverage the latest AI tools will displace those who don't.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#499
post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? Well, non-profits are not exactly capitalist companies like the ones for profit. Neither necessarily are the small business where the owner values other things over the expansion and profit. But these things are not much relevant when concerning most of production, the things that influence a country's GDP. These small busine…

Why is a non-profit or small business not capitalist? I feel like the latter, especially, is a weird stretch. Shareholders can be convinced that a long term play may be less profitable today than it will be in a decade and opt to take that path. I’m not sure why that’s assumed to be prima facie untrue. Is Uber or Door Dash not a company or mot capitalist? The latter especially appears to have no road to profit. If it…

Most small businesses aren't really about capital investment and are more about cash flow.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#500
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The alternative is to oppose the political class that has been manipulating popular opinion for a hundred years now in order to maintain their positions of power. Our current form of representation, although it’s a joke to call it that now, has been obsolete for decades. Examine the principals upon which it’s based, they make no sense with modern communication technology.

You realize that this is all a political choice right?
Post reply on HN