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

551–560 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#551

Post by avgcorrection »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #547
avgcorrection wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “Libertarianism” that you refer to here is a word stolen from the Anarchist tradition (e.g. Chomsky), a socialist tendency that has nothing to do with the radical right-wing ideology of entities like the Libertarian Party in the US. Such “Libertarianism” can't even claim that their own name originates with themselves.

So it seems things can only originate from leftist thought, but only after Marx, nothing before matters. The world began in 1800. Marx gave light, and created the world.

Right-Libertarianism came after Marx.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#552

Post by sublinear »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #152
sublinear wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nobody has ever accused me of supporting UBI, but hardly any idea is more “counterproductive” than “we should have” done something 100 years ago. Or maybe it’s less counterproductive, more irrelevant, if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?”

> if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?”

If that's at hand, the answer is to let the rest of society catch up before increasing automation.

I agree some form of government intervention is needed because it's the government's fault in the first place. I'm just saying something that should not be controversial at all: throwing money at the problem is crazy.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#553

Post by 1980phipsi »

l3mure wrote: post #535
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.

> Before China switched to free markets, they had an equal distribution of all income economy. You might want to check it out. Hmmm I'm checking it out right now. Seems like life expectancy jumped massively under Mao, is that bad?

You're cherry-picking one statistic to judge Mao's leadership.

On its own merits, life expectancy is going to be difficult to evaluate China on during this period. Mao's government followed from both a disastrous Japanese invasion as well as a disastrous civil war. Wikipedia says Mao's policies were responsible for 40 to 80 million people dying. Do the life expectancy statistics account for that? How does that compare to the performance of Western governments during the same time period?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#554

Post by Aerroon »

pixl97 wrote: post #221
Aerroon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things. > You need a nation who cares more about its people than its GDP to achieve that, and I posit no nation on Earth has that level of care for its peopl…

Do you live in a binary world, or an analog one? I mean, if you believe you live in a binary world everything is pretty easy. It's a one or a zero. Capitalism, or some kind of hellish pit of communism. That is not the real world. Instead it is a moderation of forces. Capitalist robber barons would enslave you just as quickly as the most brutal authoritarian would, if allowed. We succeed not because we let the captain…

Then how did this current world order come to pass? There is no inherent force at play or divine will that stops those "robber barons" from doing all of that. The government isn't given onto us by the almighty, it's something people created and upkeep. Those same instincts that created that would also moderate all of the evil you think people would do.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#555

Post by Aerroon »

SoftTalker wrote: post #173
Aerroon wrote: post #157

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. This just sounds like rent-seeking. People should get paid, because they once upon a time had a job. Now machines do the job better and for cheaper, therefore you deserve to be paid for it? How about the compensation is the improved products or better prices for all…

How much should a person get paid?

Whatever people are willing to pay them for the work.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#556

Post by Aerroon »

pixl97 wrote: post #232
Aerroon wrote: post #157

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. This just sounds like rent-seeking. People should get paid, because they once upon a time had a job. Now machines do the job better and for cheaper, therefore you deserve to be paid for it? How about the compensation is the improved products or better prices for all…

Ok, then what should they get paid for? Lets imagine your future world. Manual labor, right? No, that's done by robots. Arts and music... well, no. Some generative LLM hooked up to the data feeds of all human emotions is cranking more art/music per day then all 10 billion people on the planet can ever consume. Sex, the oldest profession. Na, Cherry (and Ken) 2000 came out a decade ago and has met our more primal need…

You're missing the most important type of work: writing glue code.

Somebody has to take all these disparate pieces of technology and glue them together to create useful stuff. Programming has an endless list of useful libraries and yet programmers are as much in demand as ever, because it's not easy to glue different libraries together. The same thing is important in every other type of business.

You want your AI to do manual labor? You better figure out a way to glue the AI to a robot and make it understand its environment and goals.

Want your AI to make music? It might be able to come up with a great composition itself, but you're still going to have to pick out the best one out of the 10,000 you generated. Then you've got to title it, publish it, and spread it around.

All of these are things AI could conceivably do, but it will require an enormous amount of work. If there's not enough scale there then that work is not worth it. Ie it's going to be left for humans to do.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#557

Post by jmye »

kubanczyk wrote: post #548
jmye wrote: 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…

The irony is the best side of HN. It seems you ignored the parent's main argument, but you've found their admittedly weakest paragraph. "This is a reductive and ridiculous take" is the literal phrase that you've used at that point. > Are non-profits not “companies”? Are there no small businesses that opt against expansion? The law makes such businesses slightly less likely to survive. There are ideas and ideals that…

What on earth are you talking about? The entire comment was a slap against “capitalism”, with regards to its treatment of workers and how “capitalist” companies act. I picked a specific bit to question GP on while also commenting on the whole post.

Do you think that’s unfair? Do you think suggesting that capitalism is just about enriching shareholders today is not reductive?

Whether the law makes small businesses less likely to survive (citation needed) is immaterial to the question.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#558

Post by dcgudeman »

sakex wrote: post #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.

Seriously? You consider people who resist technological advancement "heros"? Do you not work in tech? Why are you on hacker news? I honestly don't understand the motivation of anti-technology people who frequent hacker news. It makes no sense to me.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#559

Post by CatWChainsaw »

klik99 wrote: post #502
avgcorrection wrote: post #479

> Brian Merchant’s new book, “Blood in the Machine,” argues that Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers in the face of automation. And this isn't common knowledge?

for people outside of tech, apparently not. I get it - all they know is this thing they've been called many times and just see it's a pejorative. It's a little grating when he says it was misused intentionally by tech overlords to paint concerned people as anti-progress (he says this in the 99% interview), but I get where he's coming from - some people use just as an insult to throw around, whether or not they know t…

Judging by half the derogatory comments here, it's not something widely known within tech either. The most annoying thing about this place is that half the people here think they're immune to Dunning-Kruger and Gell-Man based on the hobby/profession they happen to have.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#560

Post by zlg_codes »

Aerroon wrote: post #554
pixl97 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in a binary world, or an analog one? I mean, if you believe you live in a binary world everything is pretty easy. It's a one or a zero. Capitalism, or some kind of hellish pit of communism. That is not the real world. Instead it is a moderation of forces. Capitalist robber barons would enslave you just as quickly as the most brutal authoritarian would, if allowed. We succeed not because we let the captain…

Then how did this current world order come to pass? There is no inherent force at play or divine will that stops those "robber barons" from doing all of that. The government isn't given onto us by the almighty, it's something people created and upkeep. Those same instincts that created that would also moderate all of the evil you think people would do.

Why do you have so much trust in humankind? Have you not read any history? It's very hard for me to take the "wisdom of crowds" or even of antiquity seriously, when doctors used to think it ungentlemanly to wash their damn hands before and after surgery!

We put radium on shit because it glowed, without adequately studying why until women's jaws were deteriorating in their faces.

We put asbestos on shit to prevent fires, but oopsie poopsie, better not breathe any in! And man, those knocking engines just need a little heavy metals to settle down. Whoops, IQ just noticeably dropped? Oh well.

History shows us that humankind, even when assembled and "organized" is always a day late and a dollar short to averting disaster. Nothing ever happens of import until something unavoidable and existentially threatening happens. That's when, magically, we'll be "friends" and "allies" and talk about "camaraderie". As soon as disaster is averted, they go back to being assholes to each other, just like during COVID-19.

What, pray tell, do you think humankind was able to do about evil in the past 5 years?

Post reply on HN