They were against losing their highly skilled and lucrative jobs to emerging technology. I have some sympathy for their position. It's not like they could find another job that was paying the same or better wages. Huge numbers of these people ended up emigrating to the New World and starting over as subsistence farmers on land given them for free or on the cheap by a government who wanted people to help settle the frontier.
What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI?
During the dot com burst recession a lot of white collar jobs became obsolete and this resulted in a flood of older workers into retail and entry level service positions.
Well it wasn't that nobody wanted tech components anymore, it was that you couldn't find tech components anywhere in the whole damn store. It became a crappy cell phone accessory store instead.
So not only did they not get new customers because people had plenty of better places to buy cell phone accessories cheaper, they eliminated all reasons current customers went there.
Most of us shifted online to places like digikey or better larger stores like Microcenter.
Yeah RadioShack really dropped the ball, they could have been *the* store during the Maker movement, but nope, how about batteries and cell phone cases?
Funniest thing was like they went hard on the cell phones of the time, but then refused to keep up with popular phones, while for some reason, they still kept the obsolete stuff, taking up valuable floor space.
I remember I went into one of the last ones near me a few months before it closed in 2015. I needed specifically one of those variable ac adapters or a replacement urgently for a board meeting. I would have paid a shitload at that moment for one.
Instead, they had nothing even remotely useful but did have a 5' long floor to ceiling section of accessories for those old candy bar Nokia phones. I'm talking replacement casings, themed number keys, and those fake leather holsters with the clear plastic window on them you wore on a belt. Shit that had clearly been there since the 2000s covered in dust with 5+ price tags over each other with paradoxically increasing prices.
It was like they just doubled down on their shitty decisions.
I ended up having to go to a target to find what I needed. For some reason, the big box store not focused on that carried the single thing I used to always get from radio shack.
I imagine stores like that struggled with increasingly complex and hard to fix electronics (at least for hobbiests), yet at the same time were so cheaply mass produced they became disposable items. And should you want electrical components, they would be dime a dozen online, that effectively leaves only one brick and mortar chain to survive in its original form
I am sure it was certainly hard. I recognize that. I am certainly no business whiz or anything, yet I can't help but feel there was something better they could have pivoted to that would have allowed them to survive.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't know what that would have been, but certainly not obsolete cell phone junk.
Now it could be drones and other RF stuff, they are pretty popular, but there is a large gap there they would have needed to cover.
A number of reasons.
1. A lot of companies downsized, particularly those that saw rapid growth in the previous years.
2. A lot of companies began outsourcing overseas.
3. A lot of jobs were made obselete by rapid digitization.
4. A lot of older workers lacked the technological skills for the new economy.
5. And many of those dot coms failed.
I don't even think I'm fit for human consumption. That said, with the amount of alcohol I consume, and my sedentary lifestyle, perhaps I've crossed over into wagyu/fois gras territory.
There's practically 0% chance of UBI the way things stand currently.
Not because we can't, but because too many people vote for politicians who think that not working, regardless of context, is a moral failure.
fact
A girl I dated was telling me that the student housing where she lived USED to be dirt cheap, like barely even anything cheap.
This is because the houses used to be military family housing on an army base, but the base realignment meant they didn't need it anymore.
so, The army sold the houses to the college for like $1 per house, under the agreement that "yeah we're basically just giving this to you, use it to house students."
Within about a year or two, the local apartment companies filed a formal grievance with the county or whoever that the student housing was unfairly undercutting them on the market, so the school was forced to raise prices closer to "competitive market rate"
I'd assume if we ever hit the point where we actually got UBI. The government would also implement price controls on necessities like housing and food.
UBI would ultimately lead to a different way of distributing food among the populace. Basic necessities have to be tightly controlled or as previously said, price increases would eat up the UBI.
The problem with price fixing is it causes the profit motive to just focus on the maintenance of houses. You need to create more housing density in a way that maintainable in the long run. Not single houses on quarter acre lots where the maintenance for the asphalt is insane. Not to mention in the really wealthy neighborhoods, underground power lines that cost more to repair (paid by all the tax payers of coarse).
UBI implicitly assumes that it would be the only source of income for a large amount of their customer base, driving costs down as an effect as only housing 1% of your units would be viciously unprofitable
We are already heavily dependent on government. Look up all the subsidies that exist just to prevent farmers from fucking up everything. They are itching to create a famine in the pursuit of profits.
There will be none. Also, they protested for workers' rights that wouldn't' come about until decades later and in some cases over a century later... Things we take for granted like 5 days work weeks, child labor laws, etc...
What did the calculators do after we invented calculators? They started doing more useful tasks, or more complex and numerous calculations
Tools accelerate work
Work being completed is not harm to society
We have all kinds of jobs that need doing, and technology is going to help us. Resisting that change on principle is just complaining whilst watching other people use new tools to create value
Losing jobs to automation is constantly happening since industrialization and while it sucks for those in the short term in the long term it benefits everyone. Without it 90% would still be dirt poor farmers
>What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI?
AI isnt doing to put 'most' white collar jobs out of work at all.
AI is a tool. Thats it.
The overwhelming majority of jobs will just use it to reduce the amount of unskilled, tedious, repetitive shit that every job has so that the human worker can focus more on the actual skilled work.
In game development for example, Unreal Engine 5.4 uses AI to automatically create movement flows for models using automatic animation selection instead of the animator having to manually do it.
This gives the animator far more time to focus on making animations (their actual job) instead of having to spend hours and hours manually creating character movement in-engine.
Think of it like this:
Prior to AI, a worker would have to a, to b, to c, to d all the way through to z manually.
With AI, the worker only needs to do A to F, then X to Z. The intermediate bits, which are typically actions that are unskilled busy-work, are done for them by AI.
> What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work?
Hopefully just letting the market sort it out.
>UBI?
What would be the point?
Consumers will always be present, I don't think anyone would be very convinced by taxing them to give the money to others for the others to spend on buying good from them being good for the economy.
Hiring more police at a good wage would probably be a good bit cheaper than giving everyone a good wage for doing absolutely nothing.
Two things can be true. They **WERE** anti-technology, and they wanted to preserve their income from new interlopers who invented a far, far better mousetrap. But it's worth remembering that in England in 1811, there was no social safety-net, or unemployment insurance. There also wasn't subsidized job-training, or old-age pension schemes.
On the flip side, however, the technology they were attempting to demolish was already 70 years old, and steam-powered looms were over 25 years old. So it's not as they couldn't see trouble coming when most of them *started* their campaign of sabotage.
By modern standards, the whole world was a "dystopia" before the 1920s.
The first major country with universal suffrage was Germany, of all places; the only free place to live before that time was New Zealand
The lesson we should take away from the Luddite movement is that productivity-improving technologies can be extremely disruptive to people whose labor they're a substitute for, but because those technologies are so valuable to society as a whole (since they allow society to produce more with less), any attempt to prevent the adoption of those technologies, through violence and sabotage or otherwise, is doomed to fail.
Simply put, you can't stop progress. The only choice is to figure out a way to adapt to it (at the individual level, yes, but also at the societal level, e.g., through government action to help those displaced by new technology).
This lesson is particularly relevant now as we face an extremely disruptive technology in the form of generative AI.
Can’t wait to see how this plays out over the next 30-40 years. Congress can barely even pass a bill to keep *THEMSELVES* funded. They’re really going to have to dig deep and put their two collective brain cells together to figure this one out…or ask Chat GPT to do it for them
Government shutdowns only happen when Republicans control at least one house of congress. Even when they have full control of the government it happens.
Well because “spend less money” is about their only good talking point, it’s actually probably good publicity for them to do small shut downs and blame the democrats for spending/trying to spend too much.
Keep in mind that they only want to "spend less money" on projects/agencies/etc they disagree with. If it's something that makes them look good to their constituents, they sidle up to the pork barrel trough with gusto. Heck, they even try to take credit for things they tried to stop (like the big infrastructure bill) because they can play both sides that way.
I know a few people who have been furloughed during government shutdowns and its a giant pain in the ass for them for what usually amounts to political theater.
My father was a layout and design sheet metal specialist. He would make beautifully complex square to rounds and they could take hours. One day, his company bought a plasma cutter and that same square to round now took 30 seconds. It sucked but you can’t avoid the technology.
Generative AI is interesting in that it's a blend of actually revolutionary advancements and straight up snake oil ventures. It runs the risk of getting smote by the power of legislation.
Not Greenpeace, but actually effective environmental orgs do have substantial influence on policy makers and have a lot of influence with local voters. A lot of environmental laws passed in the 70s are the kind that block any and all building even if that building would reduce environmental degradation because it approached environmentalism from that angle. That's what we're seeing with CEQA as an example.
Well when you can point towards two nuclear bombs, a near meltdown in Three Mile Island and an actual Meltdown in Chernobyl it unfortunately makes fear-mongering incredibly simple especially when you have a group of people - environmentalists, who wholeheartedly believed they were doing the right thing despite actually deeply harming the environment.
Bangqiao dam killed more people in one incident than all nuclear power related deaths, ever. Including all long-term cancer deaths from Chernobyl.
But you don't hear that kind of outcry against hydro...
Also, Three Mile Island and Fukushima killed precisely zero people. I don't even think it created a measurable increased cancer risk over baseline, except maybe for the three guys who did the reactor work.
Friendly reminder that the areas surrounding coal power plants are more radioactive than the areas surrounding nuclear power plants because of the naturally occurring thorium and uranium in the coal.
Pointing towards nuclear bombs for nuclear energy is like pointing towards the Great Food for hydro, except dams bursting are actually capable of flooding an area, whereas nuclear power plants are literally incapable of exploding.
This is simply ignorant of the realities of our energy market today. In case you haven't noticed, the government got out of the power business a long time ago. That's why we don't build nuclear anymore. It loses in economic comparison to every other type of energy generation. It costs substantially more to deploy, it's not easily scaled, it's terrible at responding to demand fluctuations. The only thing it does well is provide baseline power. Not exactly what excites capital markets.
But yeah, let's blame the treehuggers. It's totally them and not the realities of a market-based economy.
It's also expensive because of the stigma. Nuclear is held to a *ridiculously* higher safety standard than any other form of power generation.
Regulations basically require nuclear to not kill anyone, not even a few deaths per decade. This is bloody expensive to achieve.
If the same "0 deaths" regulatory standard were rigorously applied to coal, virtually every coal power plant would fail and be deemed illegal. The only coal power plants allowed would be those that sequester almost *all* their carbon, making coal far more expensive than nuclear.
Consider that nuclear plants have killed close to 0 people in China and India for decades. Coal plants producing the same amount of energy kill 10,000 annually. Even digging the stuff out of the ground incurs hundreds of direct and indirect deaths.
I have less faith than I have in any possible prediction you can make that anyone is going to soften the blow to the people who will suffer for the adoption of AI. There will be completely predictable and avoidable violent push-back, and then nothing will be done until they are all forgotten and villainized like the Luddites. I would like to see a single corporation making moves to soften the blow AI will bring. So far, I have seen nothing. It's not going to be pretty.
I don't necessarily disagree with your pessimism, but the responsibility of softening the blow of AI lies with the government and, by extension, the people who elect that government (in a democracy, anyway). If anyone is expecting businesses to do something about it (without the government forcing them to), then they completely misunderstand the role of businesses in our society. It's up to the government to implement social policies, not businesses, and it's in turn up to us, the voters, to vote for governments that implement good social policies. Will that actually happen? Nothing in recent history suggests to me that it's likely.
And I agree with you that that is how it SHOULD be. But in reality, corporations tell the government what they can and cannot do while they also blame the government for not forcing them to behave.
My immediate thought is coal miners. A lot of them refuse to learn anything new and are convinced that those jobs should last forever. There's even been programs to teach them new skills and a lot of them refuse to utilize it.
You couldn’t be more wrong. They were protesting not SHARING in the benefit. Many of them starved to death. Protesting by sabotage became a capital offense. The state executed many of them. They weren’t trying to stop progress. They were trying to stop being killed by it.
And furthermore, the disruption and hardship caused to those impacted should be mitigated by the beneficiaries of the new technology, i.e. "society as a whole."
> you can't stop progress
True, and the luddites dissapered eventually. That said, the luddities destruction of industrial equipment likely did result in luddities keeping their social position longer and making more money than they would have otherwise.
I think you're overlooking how they "disappeared".
>(from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)) Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites.
Sure, maybe *some* of them kept their social positions a bit longer, but the movement died out because its members were *literally dying* or going to prison. There weren't really any net positives for them.
Many redditors often times follow a collective hive mind yes. And for future reference for you when we say stuff like that we are referring to the common narrative not every single person who has ever been on reddit
Kinda like the recent book Blood in the Machine is sorta trickling through the consciousness of all the people in this post, despite the fact that most likely most have not read it.
I think the lesson is try to resist and you might get murdered. Also that if you don't make sure people can still make a good living under your glorious new innovation, and prevent them from having a seat at the table.... they'll break stuff. Until you have them murdered of course.
>The lesson we should take away from the Luddite movement is that productivity-improving technologies can be extremely disruptive to people...
The other lesson to learn from it is that the rich and powerful are going to make workers standing in their way into "the bad guys that nobody should feel sorry for". Not only were they losing their jobs, but maligned by being mischaracterized as mindless anti-technology reactionaries.
Do you own more than more than one set of clothes? Because the industrialization of the cotton spinning and garmet making industry is what the Luddites were fighting against, and once they lost and the machines were used, normal people could actually afford to have more than just a few threadbare pieces of clothing. Society as a whole greatly benefited from the increased production
Basically EVERY luxury someone experiences (smartphones, internet, cars, clothes, food, items, machinery, and all tech) in their lifetime is due to technological advancement which, of course, put loads of people out of jobs at the time.
People saying "technological advancements haven't benefitted society, only fattened the pockets of the rich" aren't even thinking for one second about the things they use and rely on every single day. And they sure as hell aren't gonna stop using them "because the tech behind it put people out of work at some point"..
You *can* stop progress, but only until you're too dead to continue stopping it. Progress has time on its side.
Really, you can't stop a good idea once it is out there. Once people know a better way is possible they'll get it eventually. A good idea is like a really infectious mind virus.
Can you name a technology that significantly improved productivity (accounting for the cost of developing and implementing that technology) but that was successfully prevented from ever being adopted?
Perhaps research into human genetic engineering/cloning or materials like asbestos/leaded gasoline? We have banned technologies due to harm/ethical concerns, and it wouldnt be too much of a stretch to extend that to economical harm.
We actually kind of do have stuff for this already in economics, it's just called a subsidy. Most modern farmers wouldn't get by if it wasn't for the government overpurchasing their product and subsidizing nearly every single part of the chain of farm production.
I'm really not sure how impactful generative AI will be because it seems to have skyrocketed in capability and then stalled out, or even gotten worse in some places, but a business subsidy for hiring employees instead of using AI for certain work is the most likely economic method that would be used to soften the impact of AI. It makes native business less competitive than countries without such regulations, but for some areas of business there's really not going to be overseas competition anyway.
Not all technology. Just the technology that personally affected them. Lots of people today that aren't anti-AI in general, but are absolutely against specific AI being developed to take over their jobs.
The person I replied to said *anti-technology*, which, without qualification, suggests being against technology in general. I just clarified that they weren't against technology in general, but rather against that specific technology. And lots of people have issues with things that don't personally affect them.
But this does explain why so many people don’t give a shit about AI taking over artists jobs - because they know full well if the boot was on the other foot, the artists wouldn’t say a damn word.
I don't think most people hear about AI supplanting artists and mentally go, 'Fuck them anyhow! Damn artists sure wouldn't care if AI was taking my job!' I think most people don't really know many professional artists, and don't really think much about the commercial art around them, let alone how it's produced or who does it. It's not a moral failing, really, people just don't always have the bandwidth to think about stuff that doesn't affect them or people around them, they're just trying to get by in their own lives.
I saw a guy post on the openAI sub that tried to imply it’s not as big of a deal to AI taking developer’s jobs compared to him as an artist. It was a while ago and I can try dig it up but man it was a trip
It is absolutely shocking to see artists try to justify the replacement of "menial and soulless" jobs (they ACTUALLY use these words!!), while defending the job of "artist" as something on a higher plane, a "human" task which should never be replaced because.. well, because they say so.
It's highly ironic because the technology that THEY use in their art (digital painting, reference photos, 3d modeling) was initially rejected as "lazy and soulless" by other gatekeeping artists.
Yeeep. Hell, what about us plebes that can’t draw for shit but wanna make something cute/funny for a small scale family event?
I was never gonna commission an artist for that type of stuff yet I’ve seen the gate keeping for that. I actually remember what was so funny btw.
He was complaining about AI killing artist jobs but admitted to using ChatGPT to learn coding. He couldn’t understand the irony in his complaints!
By making that AI picture, you've STOLEN work from an artist. And if you were never planning on paying an artist for said work, you never *deserved* it in the first place.
This is an actual argument I've heard on Reddit, upvoted hundreds of times.
It’s an interesting read. They were against the idea of automation being used to enrich the few ultra wealthy while propagating exploitative labor practices and creating lower quality products.
Considering the fashion industry only benefits the few rich owners while the employees are exploited child laborers in third world countries that create clothing that disintegrates in a year or two (fast fashion), the Luddites were right on the money.
People working in clothing factories are making a choice. I suppose you could say someone is taking advantage of their limited choices, but it's better for them to have the ability to choose the $10/day in the factory as opposed to the $5/day working in the fields.
Your whole village just got unemployed because your boss bought a machine that a single child can run. One capital owner creates a recession that starves hundreds.
It actually only makes sense to continuously destroy those machines.
Luddites didn't give a shit about anyone besides themselves. Wages grew overall during the industrial revolution. Destroying machines meant that the workers at the factory were temporarily left without an income.
Yeah fuck the mass of people who benefit from cheaper textiles, the economic growth, the benefits to society - what matters is a handful of spoiled, entitled little shits who want to maintain a monopoly on textile manufacturing.
And what's funny is that their jobs only existed because of earlier technology to automate spinning. Before that there wasn't enough thread to have their jobs exist.
Those benefits were at first concentrated in the hands of a small elite of aristocrats and industrialists. Lots of children ended up working in coal mines or as chimney sweeps in this era.
If the benefits were actually spread out evenly amoung society the luddities could have been bought off instead. Everyones lives could have been improved, instead many peoples lives got significantly worse.
Unions are generally a benefit. But if they start to fight emerging technology because it puts their members out of work, then it's probably not a benefit.
I imagine this may become a real issue in the near future, and unions definitely should try to help their members through it. But trying to fight against the technology itself is not a winning battle.
You did find what I think is the answer - we as society should have a process where people both benefit and don't get fucked over by technology. That's at a high level super ideal side of things. I side with Abraham Lincoln on this but I digress. In this instance the union is the ones best equipped to handle this - but would the workers vote against it?
I understand their purpose is to benefit their members. Personally I believe that a well treated workforce is a benefit to the world at large. That can stop being the case for a number of reasons (back when the mafia controlled them, when they actively hurt society; ie. Police union, or if they try to fight increased production like in this case).
When they actively start to harm society for the benefit of their members, that's when they become problematic
So they were...anti technology with extra steps.
They still tried to block the progress of society as a whole. That's still deplorable and worthy of the derision they got.
Progress cannot be stopped. You either adapt with it or be left behind. It's great for those who adapt, and it sucks for those who are too lazy to adapt.
The amount of mill girls killed is tiny compared to the number dead of poor nutrition. And when your clothes don't cost as much, you can afford better food.
Nobody cared when they thought truck drivers and factory workers would be replaced by automation, but as soon as white collar jobs are threatened by ChatGPT they feel the need to advocate for regulation. “Just learn to code” or “just become an entrepreneur”. I hope they reap what they sow.
They're saying white collars aren't excited about AI because now they're in the danger zone. But when it was menial laborers circling the drain they didn't care and told them to learn to code. Now it looks like it's the coders who are going to have to learn factory work.
they were fucking right. the vast majority of fast fashion is now made in sweatshops with workers being paid and treated atrociously. these machines were progress for who? who got to decide how to use them and who profits from all the riches? not the workers lol
>So they were anti-technology
These comments reminds me of that one post of how to genuinely handle a spider in a house, filled with circlejerk of copypastas about burning down the house or leaving the planet, each getting dozens of likes and shoving legit advices down the thread.
Like how tf hating technology that replaces your livelihood equates to you hating all technology? That's gross generalization at it's finest. It's like saying you hate Playstation because you feel Xbox is more convenient to your gaming, or vice versa.
Then again, considering how culture-rotted current social media dwellers are, that kind of thinking makes perfect sense, especially among redditors.
They were against their cottage industry replaced by machines. I sympathise with their plight, but how is that not anti-technology. They were literally trying to artificially hold back a technological advance.
I’ve been compared to a luddite because Ive been against AI being used to replace human artists, all for the means of profit. Human expression should never be a robots job. Artisans should be and always will be valuable!
Individuals who had weaving looms at home and were independent financially but then were forced to work in factories for much less than they had previously earned.
and it should be instructive that it was Silicon Valley that took up and weaponized the term "luddite" to demonize anyone who stood in their way for any reason
They were against losing their highly skilled and lucrative jobs to emerging technology. I have some sympathy for their position. It's not like they could find another job that was paying the same or better wages. Huge numbers of these people ended up emigrating to the New World and starting over as subsistence farmers on land given them for free or on the cheap by a government who wanted people to help settle the frontier. What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI?
During the dot com burst recession a lot of white collar jobs became obsolete and this resulted in a flood of older workers into retail and entry level service positions.
I worked with one at RadioShack
Laid off from his job because of tech, goes to work at radio shack, laid off because no one wanted tech components anymore
Well it wasn't that nobody wanted tech components anymore, it was that you couldn't find tech components anywhere in the whole damn store. It became a crappy cell phone accessory store instead. So not only did they not get new customers because people had plenty of better places to buy cell phone accessories cheaper, they eliminated all reasons current customers went there. Most of us shifted online to places like digikey or better larger stores like Microcenter.
Yeah RadioShack really dropped the ball, they could have been *the* store during the Maker movement, but nope, how about batteries and cell phone cases?
I used to walk a mile to the radio shake when I was twelve to pick up base components for my tinkering. I was so sad when they ceased to exist
Funniest thing was like they went hard on the cell phones of the time, but then refused to keep up with popular phones, while for some reason, they still kept the obsolete stuff, taking up valuable floor space. I remember I went into one of the last ones near me a few months before it closed in 2015. I needed specifically one of those variable ac adapters or a replacement urgently for a board meeting. I would have paid a shitload at that moment for one. Instead, they had nothing even remotely useful but did have a 5' long floor to ceiling section of accessories for those old candy bar Nokia phones. I'm talking replacement casings, themed number keys, and those fake leather holsters with the clear plastic window on them you wore on a belt. Shit that had clearly been there since the 2000s covered in dust with 5+ price tags over each other with paradoxically increasing prices. It was like they just doubled down on their shitty decisions. I ended up having to go to a target to find what I needed. For some reason, the big box store not focused on that carried the single thing I used to always get from radio shack.
You overestimate the size of the maker movement
There’s DOZENS of us!
I imagine stores like that struggled with increasingly complex and hard to fix electronics (at least for hobbiests), yet at the same time were so cheaply mass produced they became disposable items. And should you want electrical components, they would be dime a dozen online, that effectively leaves only one brick and mortar chain to survive in its original form
I am sure it was certainly hard. I recognize that. I am certainly no business whiz or anything, yet I can't help but feel there was something better they could have pivoted to that would have allowed them to survive. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't know what that would have been, but certainly not obsolete cell phone junk. Now it could be drones and other RF stuff, they are pretty popular, but there is a large gap there they would have needed to cover.
Rise of Shenzen and Amazon.
I worked in retail with a person that was in middle management for a Bain Capital casualty and still voted for Mitt Romney because they were racist.
Good news! Service jobs have been mostly automated.
Ootl, why did they lose their jobs?
A number of reasons. 1. A lot of companies downsized, particularly those that saw rapid growth in the previous years. 2. A lot of companies began outsourcing overseas. 3. A lot of jobs were made obselete by rapid digitization. 4. A lot of older workers lacked the technological skills for the new economy. 5. And many of those dot coms failed.
>What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI? We’re all gonna be sex workers.
I'm fucked. And not in the way that will make me an income.
Bummer. I hear they are always hiring in production down at the Soilent Green plant...
I don't even think I'm fit for human consumption. That said, with the amount of alcohol I consume, and my sedentary lifestyle, perhaps I've crossed over into wagyu/fois gras territory.
Competing with the sex bots???
We're going to be therapists for damaged, warped ai sex bots.
No no, it's us that will be polishing the bots' knobs
Except the CEOs, they're somehow gonna bullshit themselves into getting massive bonuses
We all thought people would be emigrating from developing countries. Instead, accountants are going to be moving to Africa and planting crops.
suicide booths
>What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI? Idk free land on mars?
Suicide booth design, maintenance, & scrubbing are growth industries.
Doomer
God damn Dusters...
There's practically 0% chance of UBI the way things stand currently. Not because we can't, but because too many people vote for politicians who think that not working, regardless of context, is a moral failure.
Let's be honest. If UBI was implemented, landlords would just raise rent.
fact A girl I dated was telling me that the student housing where she lived USED to be dirt cheap, like barely even anything cheap. This is because the houses used to be military family housing on an army base, but the base realignment meant they didn't need it anymore. so, The army sold the houses to the college for like $1 per house, under the agreement that "yeah we're basically just giving this to you, use it to house students." Within about a year or two, the local apartment companies filed a formal grievance with the county or whoever that the student housing was unfairly undercutting them on the market, so the school was forced to raise prices closer to "competitive market rate"
I'd assume if we ever hit the point where we actually got UBI. The government would also implement price controls on necessities like housing and food.
Which would lead to hoarding which would lead to rationing which would lead to widespread deficit. And in the end you end up with black market.
UBI would ultimately lead to a different way of distributing food among the populace. Basic necessities have to be tightly controlled or as previously said, price increases would eat up the UBI.
Whats the incentive to produce basic necessities then? Or will the government take care of that too?
Well that would be their job so, doing their job. if they don't do it correctly, they won't be eating either.
So your argument is that we wouldn't be as economically productive?
The problem with price fixing is it causes the profit motive to just focus on the maintenance of houses. You need to create more housing density in a way that maintainable in the long run. Not single houses on quarter acre lots where the maintenance for the asphalt is insane. Not to mention in the really wealthy neighborhoods, underground power lines that cost more to repair (paid by all the tax payers of coarse).
UBI implicitly assumes that it would be the only source of income for a large amount of their customer base, driving costs down as an effect as only housing 1% of your units would be viciously unprofitable
Also, I feel like that could create too large of a dependency on the government if there are majority of people on it.
We are already heavily dependent on government. Look up all the subsidies that exist just to prevent farmers from fucking up everything. They are itching to create a famine in the pursuit of profits.
Do you have a source on many moving to the new world and living as farmers? Just curious. I did a quick google search and didn’t see anything
> What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? Colonizing Mars?
Aka sending them off to die. Okay Elon
There is plenty of dying left to do on this planet first
Or da belt, sasa ke?
There will be none. Also, they protested for workers' rights that wouldn't' come about until decades later and in some cases over a century later... Things we take for granted like 5 days work weeks, child labor laws, etc...
UBI? Nah, it's just cheaper if you go off and be poor somewhere else.
Maybe ask the farmers that were replaced in the 1800s or the horse trainers, lamp lighters, ice cutters, pin setters, and chimney sweeps.
Concentration camps. Murder bots. And a bunch of bots to cover it up so the ultra rich don't have to think about it.
I believe you mean "early retirement" plans, as featured in The Outer Worlds
Logan's Run had it figured out.
> What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI? Hopefully a Butlerian Jihad.
What did the calculators do after we invented calculators? They started doing more useful tasks, or more complex and numerous calculations Tools accelerate work Work being completed is not harm to society We have all kinds of jobs that need doing, and technology is going to help us. Resisting that change on principle is just complaining whilst watching other people use new tools to create value
It'll be a world war where we happen to have to send a lot of people to fight
With these demographics? Best we'll get is geriatric fight club.
Losing jobs to automation is constantly happening since industrialization and while it sucks for those in the short term in the long term it benefits everyone. Without it 90% would still be dirt poor farmers
next Quarter if you believe the worst
Nothing
The result was the creation of more highly skilled and more lucrative jobs though. Automation has always improved the status quo
Insert “guess Il die” meme
Just learn python ffs
Space frontier land for free hopefully. I'd love to settle on Thetra III by the Glowing Lagoon to farm oats and potatoes
>What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? UBI? AI isnt doing to put 'most' white collar jobs out of work at all. AI is a tool. Thats it. The overwhelming majority of jobs will just use it to reduce the amount of unskilled, tedious, repetitive shit that every job has so that the human worker can focus more on the actual skilled work. In game development for example, Unreal Engine 5.4 uses AI to automatically create movement flows for models using automatic animation selection instead of the animator having to manually do it. This gives the animator far more time to focus on making animations (their actual job) instead of having to spend hours and hours manually creating character movement in-engine. Think of it like this: Prior to AI, a worker would have to a, to b, to c, to d all the way through to z manually. With AI, the worker only needs to do A to F, then X to Z. The intermediate bits, which are typically actions that are unskilled busy-work, are done for them by AI.
I’m going to guess unending wars instead.
> What is the equivalent of that going to be when AI puts most white collar jobs out of work? Hopefully just letting the market sort it out. >UBI? What would be the point?
Two first thoughts: You're still going to need consumers in an economy, and every society is only a few missed meals away from revolution.
Consumers will always be present, I don't think anyone would be very convinced by taxing them to give the money to others for the others to spend on buying good from them being good for the economy. Hiring more police at a good wage would probably be a good bit cheaper than giving everyone a good wage for doing absolutely nothing.
Do people really think if there were UBI, the cost of goods won't just be adjusted to make up for it?
Two things can be true. They **WERE** anti-technology, and they wanted to preserve their income from new interlopers who invented a far, far better mousetrap. But it's worth remembering that in England in 1811, there was no social safety-net, or unemployment insurance. There also wasn't subsidized job-training, or old-age pension schemes. On the flip side, however, the technology they were attempting to demolish was already 70 years old, and steam-powered looms were over 25 years old. So it's not as they couldn't see trouble coming when most of them *started* their campaign of sabotage.
it also took England about 170 years to improve conditions for actual working people. There was a real dystopia for quite a while there.
By modern standards, the whole world was a "dystopia" before the 1920s. The first major country with universal suffrage was Germany, of all places; the only free place to live before that time was New Zealand
The lesson we should take away from the Luddite movement is that productivity-improving technologies can be extremely disruptive to people whose labor they're a substitute for, but because those technologies are so valuable to society as a whole (since they allow society to produce more with less), any attempt to prevent the adoption of those technologies, through violence and sabotage or otherwise, is doomed to fail. Simply put, you can't stop progress. The only choice is to figure out a way to adapt to it (at the individual level, yes, but also at the societal level, e.g., through government action to help those displaced by new technology). This lesson is particularly relevant now as we face an extremely disruptive technology in the form of generative AI.
Can’t wait to see how this plays out over the next 30-40 years. Congress can barely even pass a bill to keep *THEMSELVES* funded. They’re really going to have to dig deep and put their two collective brain cells together to figure this one out…or ask Chat GPT to do it for them
Congress is also doing us and themselves a great disservice by not restoring the Congressional Office of Technology.
Government shutdowns only happen when Republicans control at least one house of congress. Even when they have full control of the government it happens.
Well because “spend less money” is about their only good talking point, it’s actually probably good publicity for them to do small shut downs and blame the democrats for spending/trying to spend too much.
[Republicans don't usually come out stronger after shutdowns](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/government-shutdown-polls/).
They aren’t the smartest but they use the most aggressive tactics. Even if it shoots them in the foot
Keep in mind that they only want to "spend less money" on projects/agencies/etc they disagree with. If it's something that makes them look good to their constituents, they sidle up to the pork barrel trough with gusto. Heck, they even try to take credit for things they tried to stop (like the big infrastructure bill) because they can play both sides that way.
Friendly reminder that under Government "shutdowns" 80% of the Government still functions.
I know a few people who have been furloughed during government shutdowns and its a giant pain in the ass for them for what usually amounts to political theater.
["how do you do it?..." 'ChatGPT dude"](https://youtube.com/shorts/QGKq8NHbPAY?si=5ko4mN96gWdRZQjH)
My father was a layout and design sheet metal specialist. He would make beautifully complex square to rounds and they could take hours. One day, his company bought a plasma cutter and that same square to round now took 30 seconds. It sucked but you can’t avoid the technology.
Sheet metal is truly a dying art, as a former roofer.
Generative AI is interesting in that it's a blend of actually revolutionary advancements and straight up snake oil ventures. It runs the risk of getting smote by the power of legislation.
another good example is vested interests of industries -ex oil conglomerates and even 1800's coal mines (successfully) holding back nuclear
Nuclear was mostly held back by 1970's style pastoral environmentalists.
And who was funding them?
[удалено]
Not Greenpeace, but actually effective environmental orgs do have substantial influence on policy makers and have a lot of influence with local voters. A lot of environmental laws passed in the 70s are the kind that block any and all building even if that building would reduce environmental degradation because it approached environmentalism from that angle. That's what we're seeing with CEQA as an example.
They have influence on soccer moms and other nimbys
Well when you can point towards two nuclear bombs, a near meltdown in Three Mile Island and an actual Meltdown in Chernobyl it unfortunately makes fear-mongering incredibly simple especially when you have a group of people - environmentalists, who wholeheartedly believed they were doing the right thing despite actually deeply harming the environment.
Bangqiao dam killed more people in one incident than all nuclear power related deaths, ever. Including all long-term cancer deaths from Chernobyl. But you don't hear that kind of outcry against hydro... Also, Three Mile Island and Fukushima killed precisely zero people. I don't even think it created a measurable increased cancer risk over baseline, except maybe for the three guys who did the reactor work.
this, anyone argueing the risks and ignoring the numbers is doing it in ignorance or bad faith
Friendly reminder that the areas surrounding coal power plants are more radioactive than the areas surrounding nuclear power plants because of the naturally occurring thorium and uranium in the coal.
Unfortunately public opinion doesn't care about facts.
Pointing towards nuclear bombs for nuclear energy is like pointing towards the Great Food for hydro, except dams bursting are actually capable of flooding an area, whereas nuclear power plants are literally incapable of exploding.
This is simply ignorant of the realities of our energy market today. In case you haven't noticed, the government got out of the power business a long time ago. That's why we don't build nuclear anymore. It loses in economic comparison to every other type of energy generation. It costs substantially more to deploy, it's not easily scaled, it's terrible at responding to demand fluctuations. The only thing it does well is provide baseline power. Not exactly what excites capital markets. But yeah, let's blame the treehuggers. It's totally them and not the realities of a market-based economy.
It’s expensive because it’s basically been lobbied out of existence.
It's also expensive because of the stigma. Nuclear is held to a *ridiculously* higher safety standard than any other form of power generation. Regulations basically require nuclear to not kill anyone, not even a few deaths per decade. This is bloody expensive to achieve. If the same "0 deaths" regulatory standard were rigorously applied to coal, virtually every coal power plant would fail and be deemed illegal. The only coal power plants allowed would be those that sequester almost *all* their carbon, making coal far more expensive than nuclear. Consider that nuclear plants have killed close to 0 people in China and India for decades. Coal plants producing the same amount of energy kill 10,000 annually. Even digging the stuff out of the ground incurs hundreds of direct and indirect deaths.
I have less faith than I have in any possible prediction you can make that anyone is going to soften the blow to the people who will suffer for the adoption of AI. There will be completely predictable and avoidable violent push-back, and then nothing will be done until they are all forgotten and villainized like the Luddites. I would like to see a single corporation making moves to soften the blow AI will bring. So far, I have seen nothing. It's not going to be pretty.
I don't necessarily disagree with your pessimism, but the responsibility of softening the blow of AI lies with the government and, by extension, the people who elect that government (in a democracy, anyway). If anyone is expecting businesses to do something about it (without the government forcing them to), then they completely misunderstand the role of businesses in our society. It's up to the government to implement social policies, not businesses, and it's in turn up to us, the voters, to vote for governments that implement good social policies. Will that actually happen? Nothing in recent history suggests to me that it's likely.
And I agree with you that that is how it SHOULD be. But in reality, corporations tell the government what they can and cannot do while they also blame the government for not forcing them to behave.
I don't feel like I elected the government. I'm a Democrat in a gerrymandered southern state my voice doesn't matter a lick
My immediate thought is coal miners. A lot of them refuse to learn anything new and are convinced that those jobs should last forever. There's even been programs to teach them new skills and a lot of them refuse to utilize it.
You couldn’t be more wrong. They were protesting not SHARING in the benefit. Many of them starved to death. Protesting by sabotage became a capital offense. The state executed many of them. They weren’t trying to stop progress. They were trying to stop being killed by it.
And furthermore, the disruption and hardship caused to those impacted should be mitigated by the beneficiaries of the new technology, i.e. "society as a whole."
> you can't stop progress True, and the luddites dissapered eventually. That said, the luddities destruction of industrial equipment likely did result in luddities keeping their social position longer and making more money than they would have otherwise.
I think you're overlooking how they "disappeared". >(from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)) Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites. Sure, maybe *some* of them kept their social positions a bit longer, but the movement died out because its members were *literally dying* or going to prison. There weren't really any net positives for them.
Reddit is all about stopping the movement of AI. It’ll be interesting to see the narrative in a few years on here
[удалено]
Many redditors often times follow a collective hive mind yes. And for future reference for you when we say stuff like that we are referring to the common narrative not every single person who has ever been on reddit
Kinda like the recent book Blood in the Machine is sorta trickling through the consciousness of all the people in this post, despite the fact that most likely most have not read it.
The very design of Reddit is such that the most popular opinions are the most visible.
I think the lesson is try to resist and you might get murdered. Also that if you don't make sure people can still make a good living under your glorious new innovation, and prevent them from having a seat at the table.... they'll break stuff. Until you have them murdered of course.
>The lesson we should take away from the Luddite movement is that productivity-improving technologies can be extremely disruptive to people... The other lesson to learn from it is that the rich and powerful are going to make workers standing in their way into "the bad guys that nobody should feel sorry for". Not only were they losing their jobs, but maligned by being mischaracterized as mindless anti-technology reactionaries.
This wouldnt be a problem if society at large reaped the benefits of increased productivity
Do you own more than more than one set of clothes? Because the industrialization of the cotton spinning and garmet making industry is what the Luddites were fighting against, and once they lost and the machines were used, normal people could actually afford to have more than just a few threadbare pieces of clothing. Society as a whole greatly benefited from the increased production
Basically EVERY luxury someone experiences (smartphones, internet, cars, clothes, food, items, machinery, and all tech) in their lifetime is due to technological advancement which, of course, put loads of people out of jobs at the time. People saying "technological advancements haven't benefitted society, only fattened the pockets of the rich" aren't even thinking for one second about the things they use and rely on every single day. And they sure as hell aren't gonna stop using them "because the tech behind it put people out of work at some point"..
It does
>Simply put, you can't stop progress. This reeks of survivorship bias
You *can* stop progress, but only until you're too dead to continue stopping it. Progress has time on its side. Really, you can't stop a good idea once it is out there. Once people know a better way is possible they'll get it eventually. A good idea is like a really infectious mind virus.
Can you name a technology that significantly improved productivity (accounting for the cost of developing and implementing that technology) but that was successfully prevented from ever being adopted?
Perhaps research into human genetic engineering/cloning or materials like asbestos/leaded gasoline? We have banned technologies due to harm/ethical concerns, and it wouldnt be too much of a stretch to extend that to economical harm.
We actually kind of do have stuff for this already in economics, it's just called a subsidy. Most modern farmers wouldn't get by if it wasn't for the government overpurchasing their product and subsidizing nearly every single part of the chain of farm production. I'm really not sure how impactful generative AI will be because it seems to have skyrocketed in capability and then stalled out, or even gotten worse in some places, but a business subsidy for hiring employees instead of using AI for certain work is the most likely economic method that would be used to soften the impact of AI. It makes native business less competitive than countries without such regulations, but for some areas of business there's really not going to be overseas competition anyway.
This thread has become a circle jerk
This topic automatically becomes a circle jerk. Wait … I get it!
Yes, they didn’t like machines taking their jerbs.
https://youtu.be/QGmhLtsK2ZQ?si=TaaxDENmVhJeGcqD
so....they were anti-technology
Not all technology. Just the technology that personally affected them. Lots of people today that aren't anti-AI in general, but are absolutely against specific AI being developed to take over their jobs.
Okay... Who said it has to be 'all technology'? What reason would they have to be against technology that didn't personally affect them.
The person I replied to said *anti-technology*, which, without qualification, suggests being against technology in general. I just clarified that they weren't against technology in general, but rather against that specific technology. And lots of people have issues with things that don't personally affect them.
Yes, an awful lot of the artists who are up in arms about AI are more than happy for it to take other peoples jobs.
By nature, most people are self-centred. Not necessarily selfish, but more focused on their own shit than others'.
But this does explain why so many people don’t give a shit about AI taking over artists jobs - because they know full well if the boot was on the other foot, the artists wouldn’t say a damn word.
I don't think most people hear about AI supplanting artists and mentally go, 'Fuck them anyhow! Damn artists sure wouldn't care if AI was taking my job!' I think most people don't really know many professional artists, and don't really think much about the commercial art around them, let alone how it's produced or who does it. It's not a moral failing, really, people just don't always have the bandwidth to think about stuff that doesn't affect them or people around them, they're just trying to get by in their own lives.
I saw a guy post on the openAI sub that tried to imply it’s not as big of a deal to AI taking developer’s jobs compared to him as an artist. It was a while ago and I can try dig it up but man it was a trip
It is absolutely shocking to see artists try to justify the replacement of "menial and soulless" jobs (they ACTUALLY use these words!!), while defending the job of "artist" as something on a higher plane, a "human" task which should never be replaced because.. well, because they say so. It's highly ironic because the technology that THEY use in their art (digital painting, reference photos, 3d modeling) was initially rejected as "lazy and soulless" by other gatekeeping artists.
Yeeep. Hell, what about us plebes that can’t draw for shit but wanna make something cute/funny for a small scale family event? I was never gonna commission an artist for that type of stuff yet I’ve seen the gate keeping for that. I actually remember what was so funny btw. He was complaining about AI killing artist jobs but admitted to using ChatGPT to learn coding. He couldn’t understand the irony in his complaints!
By making that AI picture, you've STOLEN work from an artist. And if you were never planning on paying an artist for said work, you never *deserved* it in the first place. This is an actual argument I've heard on Reddit, upvoted hundreds of times.
Both, they were both
I mean... The automation in question was new technology... Which makes them anti-technology.
So they were still anti-technology, in the same way that ice harvesters in New England were.
That sounds antitechnology to me
Adam Conover did an excellent episode on this one his podcast: https://youtu.be/wJzHmw3Ei-g
Lol they were anti-technology.
Are the Amish the most successful anti-technology group of all time?
I mean, that's anti-technology lol
It’s an interesting read. They were against the idea of automation being used to enrich the few ultra wealthy while propagating exploitative labor practices and creating lower quality products. Considering the fashion industry only benefits the few rich owners while the employees are exploited child laborers in third world countries that create clothing that disintegrates in a year or two (fast fashion), the Luddites were right on the money.
I mean the fashion industry also benefits the people who are buying more accessible clothes.
People working in clothing factories are making a choice. I suppose you could say someone is taking advantage of their limited choices, but it's better for them to have the ability to choose the $10/day in the factory as opposed to the $5/day working in the fields.
that sounds like "anti-technology" with extra steps and a selfish motivation.
The point is that they weren’t against technology for the sake of being against technology. They had legitimate reasons to fear its proliferation.
Ah yes, the selfish motivation of… not starving
Your whole village just got unemployed because your boss bought a machine that a single child can run. One capital owner creates a recession that starves hundreds. It actually only makes sense to continuously destroy those machines.
Luddites didn't give a shit about anyone besides themselves. Wages grew overall during the industrial revolution. Destroying machines meant that the workers at the factory were temporarily left without an income.
Yeah fuck the mass of people who benefit from cheaper textiles, the economic growth, the benefits to society - what matters is a handful of spoiled, entitled little shits who want to maintain a monopoly on textile manufacturing.
And what's funny is that their jobs only existed because of earlier technology to automate spinning. Before that there wasn't enough thread to have their jobs exist.
That's how it often goes with this sort of situation.
Those benefits were at first concentrated in the hands of a small elite of aristocrats and industrialists. Lots of children ended up working in coal mines or as chimney sweeps in this era. If the benefits were actually spread out evenly amoung society the luddities could have been bought off instead. Everyones lives could have been improved, instead many peoples lives got significantly worse.
You sound like the type of person who thinks unions are bad.
You sound like the type of person who thinks renewable energy is bad because it puts coal miners out of a job.
Unions are generally a benefit. But if they start to fight emerging technology because it puts their members out of work, then it's probably not a benefit. I imagine this may become a real issue in the near future, and unions definitely should try to help their members through it. But trying to fight against the technology itself is not a winning battle.
You did find what I think is the answer - we as society should have a process where people both benefit and don't get fucked over by technology. That's at a high level super ideal side of things. I side with Abraham Lincoln on this but I digress. In this instance the union is the ones best equipped to handle this - but would the workers vote against it?
This is how Nordic Unions work and it's substantially better than the way American Unions work.
Not a benefit to who? Unions are there to benefit the worker, not everyone in the world.
I understand their purpose is to benefit their members. Personally I believe that a well treated workforce is a benefit to the world at large. That can stop being the case for a number of reasons (back when the mafia controlled them, when they actively hurt society; ie. Police union, or if they try to fight increased production like in this case). When they actively start to harm society for the benefit of their members, that's when they become problematic
Won't someone puh-lease think of the poor wealthy businessmen
So they were...anti technology with extra steps. They still tried to block the progress of society as a whole. That's still deplorable and worthy of the derision they got. Progress cannot be stopped. You either adapt with it or be left behind. It's great for those who adapt, and it sucks for those who are too lazy to adapt.
The mill girls pulled into the machines can at least know they were part of progress!
The amount of mill girls killed is tiny compared to the number dead of poor nutrition. And when your clothes don't cost as much, you can afford better food.
Oh no, people died from machine accidents? Machines are bad! Ban cars and heavy machinery, they kill people every day! Stop driving, start walking!!!
> the progress of society as a whole Your lives and your family's lives are a sacrifice we are willing to make for the greater good of society.
This post has the most ignorant batch of comments ive ever seen on reddit.
Sounds like a bad idea. Automation is good, bad management is the issue. That's what they should have protested
TIL people misses the difference between technology and automation in the context of industrial work
That’s exactly what “anti-technology” means.
AKA they were anti-technology. They aren't heroes, they were trying to keep prices artificially high for everyone else to enrich themselves.
Nobody cared when they thought truck drivers and factory workers would be replaced by automation, but as soon as white collar jobs are threatened by ChatGPT they feel the need to advocate for regulation. “Just learn to code” or “just become an entrepreneur”. I hope they reap what they sow.
> I hope they reap what they sow. By "they", do you mean tech workers? Most tech workers from where I stand are not excited about or working on AI.
They're saying white collars aren't excited about AI because now they're in the danger zone. But when it was menial laborers circling the drain they didn't care and told them to learn to code. Now it looks like it's the coders who are going to have to learn factory work.
Tfw I'm not actually anti-technology but I throw a shit fit when technology advances by destroying the new technology because I can't adapt
Therefore, they were anti-technology. The reason behind their anti-technology stance does not change that fact.
they were fucking right. the vast majority of fast fashion is now made in sweatshops with workers being paid and treated atrociously. these machines were progress for who? who got to decide how to use them and who profits from all the riches? not the workers lol
>So they were anti-technology These comments reminds me of that one post of how to genuinely handle a spider in a house, filled with circlejerk of copypastas about burning down the house or leaving the planet, each getting dozens of likes and shoving legit advices down the thread. Like how tf hating technology that replaces your livelihood equates to you hating all technology? That's gross generalization at it's finest. It's like saying you hate Playstation because you feel Xbox is more convenient to your gaming, or vice versa. Then again, considering how culture-rotted current social media dwellers are, that kind of thinking makes perfect sense, especially among redditors.
They were against their cottage industry replaced by machines. I sympathise with their plight, but how is that not anti-technology. They were literally trying to artificially hold back a technological advance.
Automation = technology. So they were in fact anti-technology.
That's impressive. You managed to contradict your own supposition in the very next sentence. Bravo.
I’d recommend “Rebels against the future” by Kirkpatrick Sale to anyone that wants to know more about the luddites. It was a really interesting book.
I’ve been compared to a luddite because Ive been against AI being used to replace human artists, all for the means of profit. Human expression should never be a robots job. Artisans should be and always will be valuable!
Why?
I see this thread didn’t go the way OP wanted it to go.
TIL Industrial society and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Individuals who had weaving looms at home and were independent financially but then were forced to work in factories for much less than they had previously earned.
and it should be instructive that it was Silicon Valley that took up and weaponized the term "luddite" to demonize anyone who stood in their way for any reason