4 ms·

> they comitted acts of terrorism I never said they didn't. > they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. Yes, that's correct. Why did th

by pdkl95 8y ago

> they comitted acts of terrorism I never said they didn't. > they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Because they were against technology.
- markdown 8y ago
  No, they were against this particular technology because its introduction meant they could no longer earn a living and feed their families. Technology that benefits the few at the expense of the many is going to destroy us. The only way around it is UBI in some form or another.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    But we're in all cases talking about technology that benefits most people at the expense of a few.
  - ufmace 8y ago
    Macroeconomic forces are complex. Technology has wiped out entire types of work many times over the years, and the workers usually, though not always, make out all right. The problem is not any particular technological advance IMO, but overloading the economic mechanisms that allow people to find new careers. Too much technological advance too fast plus too many industries shipped overseas where labor is cheaper in an environment without enough new job development equals a permanent underclass, with all of the economic tensions that come along with it. Meanwhile, UBI has many serious problems and we don't have anywhere near the level of job disruption to make it a workable solution.
    - newer_guy 8y ago
      Your entire viewpoint is based on the idea that there will always be jobs no matter how advanced ai and automation becomes. This is the idea that needs to be addressed, not the shrubbery surrounding it. It’s meaningless to say that new jobs have always been found and that rapid advancement in technology has not seemed to doom us so far. That’s like saying we haven’t run out of oil yet so why would we ever run out. The number of tasks that a human can do is finite. When machines saturate that set of tasks, something really bad will happen. But even long before, there will be massive problems as we approach it. I already know you won’t be convinced by what I’m saying. Just respond with your strongest counter-argument to my central point about the finite nature of human jobs, or in other words what will happen when machines can do everything we can. Just give me your strongest counter-argument about that. I will then explain why that’s wrong, and we can continue until you see that you’re wrong. I will be extremely patient about it.
      - dang 8y ago
        Can you please not cross into incivility in HN comments? It leads to flamewars and we're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        newer_guy 8y ago
        I just offered to hold this mans hand through the entire process of coming to a correct conclusion about the most important topic of our time. I am not sure how helping this person was an example of incivility.
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for trolling. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
    - mcguire 8y ago
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    Are there really more professional drivers who will be harmed by self driving cars than passengers who will benefit?
    - kthejoker2 8y ago
      Perhaps? Depending on what "benefits" I actually accrue. Autonomous cars could very well just be a race to the bottom type experience.
    - mmcwilliams 8y ago
      Truck driver is one of the most common jobs in the US and the initial beneficiaries of self-driving cars and trucks—financially and practically—will be those in the upper income brackets, so it’s likely that there will be a perception of inequality about the technology until there is some kind of correcting force.
- imtringued 8y ago
  In that case why did they single out automated looms (which directly affected them) and why didn't they attack other factories too?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    What you're arguing about (and what I'm arguing about) is not what their actual motivations were, it's about language. If you're happy with technological change -- except for technology you don't like -- are you for or against technology? If you're happy with free speech -- except for speech you want to ban -- are you for or against free speech?
c3534l 8y ago
> I never said they didn't. I never said you said they didn't. > Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"? This is precisely what I was critizing. The statement isn't wrong, you just want to justify it. You're not correcting anything, you're defending it. You're tacking a why question onto it when all anyone said was what. They were against the new technological improvements characeristic of that time and place. That's not a common misconception simply because they had rational arguments to justify themselves.

by pdkl95 8y ago

> they comitted acts of terrorism I never said they didn't. > they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?

SamReidHughes 8y ago

Because they were against technology.

markdown 8y ago
No, they were against this particular technology because its introduction meant they could no longer earn a living and feed their families. Technology that benefits the few at the expense of the many is going to destroy us. The only way around it is UBI in some form or another.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  But we're in all cases talking about technology that benefits most people at the expense of a few.
- ufmace 8y ago
  Macroeconomic forces are complex. Technology has wiped out entire types of work many times over the years, and the workers usually, though not always, make out all right. The problem is not any particular technological advance IMO, but overloading the economic mechanisms that allow people to find new careers. Too much technological advance too fast plus too many industries shipped overseas where labor is cheaper in an environment without enough new job development equals a permanent underclass, with all of the economic tensions that come along with it. Meanwhile, UBI has many serious problems and we don't have anywhere near the level of job disruption to make it a workable solution.
  - newer_guy 8y ago
    Your entire viewpoint is based on the idea that there will always be jobs no matter how advanced ai and automation becomes. This is the idea that needs to be addressed, not the shrubbery surrounding it. It’s meaningless to say that new jobs have always been found and that rapid advancement in technology has not seemed to doom us so far. That’s like saying we haven’t run out of oil yet so why would we ever run out. The number of tasks that a human can do is finite. When machines saturate that set of tasks, something really bad will happen. But even long before, there will be massive problems as we approach it. I already know you won’t be convinced by what I’m saying. Just respond with your strongest counter-argument to my central point about the finite nature of human jobs, or in other words what will happen when machines can do everything we can. Just give me your strongest counter-argument about that. I will then explain why that’s wrong, and we can continue until you see that you’re wrong. I will be extremely patient about it.
    - dang 8y ago
      Can you please not cross into incivility in HN comments? It leads to flamewars and we're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - newer_guy 8y ago
        I just offered to hold this mans hand through the entire process of coming to a correct conclusion about the most important topic of our time. I am not sure how helping this person was an example of incivility.
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for trolling. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
  - mcguire 8y ago
- tedunangst 8y ago
  Are there really more professional drivers who will be harmed by self driving cars than passengers who will benefit?
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    Perhaps? Depending on what "benefits" I actually accrue. Autonomous cars could very well just be a race to the bottom type experience.
  - mmcwilliams 8y ago
    Truck driver is one of the most common jobs in the US and the initial beneficiaries of self-driving cars and trucks—financially and practically—will be those in the upper income brackets, so it’s likely that there will be a perception of inequality about the technology until there is some kind of correcting force.
imtringued 8y ago
In that case why did they single out automated looms (which directly affected them) and why didn't they attack other factories too?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  What you're arguing about (and what I'm arguing about) is not what their actual motivations were, it's about language. If you're happy with technological change -- except for technology you don't like -- are you for or against technology? If you're happy with free speech -- except for speech you want to ban -- are you for or against free speech?

c3534l 8y ago

> I never said they didn't. I never said you said they didn't. > Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"? This is precisely what I was critizing. The statement isn't wrong, you just want to justify it. You're not correcting anything, you're defending it. You're tacking a why question onto it when all anyone said was what. They were against the new technological improvements characeristic of that time and place. That's not a common misconception simply because they had rational arguments to justify themselves.