4 ms·
In my opinion, yes, of course such a movement would find traction. We've seen similar movements at every major technological shift in human history. Some examp
by abetusk 4y ago
In my opinion, yes, of course such a movement would find traction.
We've seen similar movements at every major technological shift in human history. Some examples off the top of my head are certain types of Orthodox Jewish religions and the Amish. Even the term "sabotage" was from workers throwing their shoes ("sabos") into machines for fear of them losing their jobs [0].
There's been a steady stream of anarchists, luddites, neo-luddites and other extremists arguing against technology [1]. Ted Kacyznski famously killed scientists and academics for precisely that reason [2].
From what I can tell, the vast majority of people tend to accept the compromises of new technology and live with the drawbacks, making any anti-technology movement either short-lived or niche, especially the more extreme or repressive they become, but they do exist and continue to exist.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage#Etymology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
- cortesoft 4y agoYour link for sabotage says your version of the story is apocryphal.
- NO-AI 4y agoToday's transformer networks are the first hints of a technology that will replace humans completely for all purposes. It's qualitatively different, like world-destroying atomic bombs versus the minor explosives that came before. This is not like a loom replacing hand-weaving. We're rapidly converging on a full replacement for the human mind. These systems will not defeat you with guns like in Terminator. They will defeat you by commoditizing your mind and making your economic value zero.
- abetusk 4y agoThere is a complete and utter annihilation of a generation in a rolling 120 year window. That is, there is, to most anyone's knowledge, no human older than 120 years. We've lost every single person from generations that are older than 120 years ago. We call this "natural" but otherwise completely accept this death of billions. Our children will propagate whatever it is to be human forward. If the next generation is completely digital/AI/made of silicon then, in my opinion, the most likely scenario is that they will propagate this essence of humanity forward, just like "natural" children would. In other words, luddites view AI as an invading force whereas I see AI as our children that will propel humanity forward. In terms of responding to your economic value zero point, I'd highlight that, under normal circumstances, in 120 years yours and mine economic value is exactly zero. The best we can ever hope for, in this scenario, is that we make some contribution that allows us to be remembered. The only hope for the essence of our personality or brain power to be preserved and still be functional in perpetuity is if it's copied into an "AI" or there are some spectacular advances in longevity science that would only be possible with AI.
- zwkrt 4y agoI think similarly, but I dont think of humanity as “going forward”. We are right here and stationary, like a flower blooming. If the next step of earth’s unfolding involves humans relinquishing our position to machines then so be it, but it isn’t progress any more than a dance is progress.
- eternalban 4y ago> I see AI as our children that will propel humanity forward. This is a logical point of view for those who believe they ["human beings"] are merely hydrocarbon based machines twisting in the winds of entropy.
- trevyn 4y agoIt’s kind of poetic, no? Humanity’s final challenge is to accept defeat with grace and humility.
- rl3 4y agoAt our own hands, no less.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]