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

221–230 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#221

Post by pixl97 »

Aerroon wrote: post #159
zlg_codes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given what the "top" of society looks like currently, the Luddites were correct to be skeptical of technology, and accusations of "Luddite" at the slightest hint of not being 100% on board with the latest fad technology make this discussion seem in bad faith. Most techies I know do not have a skeptical eye for technology, even though IMO they should. This shit is being used to spy on and manipulate us with the data t…

> 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 captains of industry do what they like, for we know their greed can never be sated. Instead we have we share are progress in a way that benefits humanity and not the few. We strive to make the world better and not just ourselves richer.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#222

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

zlg_codes wrote: post #58
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the first time in history a machine can come up with novel ideas. Up until now, you were only really automating away the boring stuff.

Since when can a computer come up with a novel idea? Do not be fooled by GPT, it's a fancy Markov chain hooked up to training data. It cannot come up with anything that wasn't already in its data set.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol

“AlphaGo showed anomalies and moves from a broader perspective which professional Go players described as looking like mistakes at the first sight but an intentional strategy in hindsight.”

Doesn’t matter if the data was already there if a human overlooks it. It took an AI to do something that everyone thought was a mistake at first.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#223

Post by throwanem »

kaashif wrote: post #216
throwanem wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's okay to perform the harmful act, knowing the harm it will cause, as long as you leave yourself the out of being able to say it'd have come to nothing had others declined to participate? I once heard a heroin dealer make a similar claim.

So you're now comparing AI use to heroin use? Not the most accurate comparison if you ask me.

No, of course not; that would be foolish. I'm pointing out that this argument goes equally well to justify either practice, and a lot more ill besides. That makes it a weak argument, and it makes someone who uses it look likewise, because who'd go for this if they had anything better?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#224

Post by nico »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #206
nico wrote: 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 people, but not free from duress. Duress of having to eat, having a mortgage, having tuition, debt. Everyone has a boss, and a budget to hit. It is the Banality of Evil. US corporations are full of layers of Middle management made of "Eichmann"s. Be it violating environmental laws on dumping, covering up sexual abuse, or sending people to ovens. It happens, has happened, and will get worse. And yes, it…

Are you then suggesting that it doesn’t matter? That we should just shrug and give up?

Or that we should just allow for any group of people to do anything to another group of people, because it just happens, it’s just human nature, so whatever?

I guess that’s kind of the way the US has been going for a while now

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#225

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

JohnFen wrote: post #78
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. Companies already send that clear message even without AI. That's why there's fear here: we expect companies to behave as they always have, and that is with a level of contempt for human workers.

They have a contempt for the cost of human workers and, frankly, just cost in general.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#226

Post by pixl97 »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #89
pydry wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) We need a radically different one now - one that shifts the burden *off" labor and back on to asset owners - especially land owners (there is literally only an economic upside to taxing them more). 2) somebody still has to fix those robots. 3) if control over the economy were wrested from oligarchs and were put under democratic control, the economy wouldnt be geared towards frittering away billions on trying to de…

I take issue with point three. Assuming that democratization of private goods is a good thing, we’d want to deskill so to speak. We’d want to pursue automation. I doubt the majority of citizens would want know how to maintain the automation.

>would want know how to maintain the automation.

Ah, I see we're following the foundation timeline.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#227

Post by selestify »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #213
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.

If I understand you correctly, selling counterfeit/falsely marketed goods is only a problem if enough buyers can tell the difference?

No, they never said anything about lying. That would be selling something the customer didn’t paying for.

Selling lower quality goods like the article mentions is not a problem if the customers are fine with it given the lower price of the goods. The customer is responsible for making their own decisions about whether to prioritize cost or quality. As the person you were replying to says, by their actions (purchasing the cheaper, automated cloth), you can tell that the customers to appear to vastly prefer the cheaper, poor quality cloth. Who are we to tell them their preferences are wrong?

Edit: I see your original comment. Where the heck did you get that factory owners were doing illegal worker displacement or doing false advertisement? I don’t see that claim in the article.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#228

Post by selestify »

jprete wrote: post #193
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…

> I much prefer modern society over what they had. Commonly available running water, electricity, heating, insulation, the internet are some pretty nice things. This is totally, completely, utterly irrelevant to the GP's point.

It is not irrelevant because higher GDP is exactly what enables many of the conveniences of modern society. Nations ignoring GDP would mean putting access to these amenities at risk as well.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#229

Post by ethanbond »

deevolution wrote: post #217
ethanbond wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a billboard for Capital in the whole Capital vs Labor debate? “Laborers fret not, you’ve been liberated from your job actually, and I sure hope you bought securities!”

we've all mostly been liberated from back breaking agricultural farm work in developed countries, no? At least in countries that have automated. Don't think you can say the same for countries without automation. We've reaped tremendous benefits that are just totally lost / taken for granted by the luddites.

I think some people take it for granted, but your argument is also a good one for being less satisfied with our current state of affairs.

Just imagine how many more people would be even more liberated from inhumane work and low living conditions if wealth didn’t accrue quite so severely to the top N%.

Not a reason to stop progress IMO but a good reason to question it and try to nudge it in certain directions.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#230

Post by selestify »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #225
JohnFen wrote: post #78

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. Companies already send that clear message even without AI. That's why there's fear here: we expect companies to behave as they always have, and that is with a level of contempt for human workers.

They have a contempt for the cost of human workers and, frankly, just cost in general.

> and, frankly, just cost in general.

Well, of course. Edge cases aside, why shouldn’t anyone save on money when it’s acceptable to do so?

Post reply on HN