7 ms·

It’s very surprising when people talk about AI but not talk about the Industrial Revolution. The power loom hugely changed the world. You don’t have to write a

It’s very surprising when people talk about AI but not talk about the Industrial Revolution. The power loom hugely changed the world. You don’t have to write a substack about your opinions — just read a history book. Second, Marc quotes outsourcing but that’s not at all a relevant example. Outsourcing was not a technology. His other example is of robots but robots have not been revolutionary like the power loom or even the assembly line have been.

wardedVibe 4y ago
Everyone should read about the Luddites. Turns out this debate has happened before, except with more smashing.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Smashing? You mean armed government forces fighting against their citizens.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 4y ago
What do you mean? Every article about this makes the comparison with the Industrial Revolution, including this one.
- dmichulke 4y ago
  I think he means that the Industrial Revolution made a lot of human work obsolete, yet here we are almost without unemployment. Same for the invention of the wheel. So how was that possible? Turns out people didn't want to work less, they wanted more stuff. (Bigger houses, more houses, better food, health care, ...) The same will happen again with AI. Thanks to infinite human wants.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    We're only "without unemployment" because most of the population is spectacularly underpaid. This makes it cheaper - so far - to use human labour than machine labour. And we don't use human labour very efficiently. A lot of activities are pointless make-work or zero productivity wealth transfer. Which is almost the point of AI. It's not just about partial mechanisation or automation, which is what happened during the first Industrial Revolution. It's about making all human activity obsolete. Including all forms of mental and physical labour. All forms of culture. And all forms of economic and political organisation. There will be nothing humans can do which a machine won't do better. We're like the dinosaurs. A few of us are looking up at the new light in the sky and thinking "Well, that's interesting" without much of an idea of what's actually incoming.
    - dogcomplex 4y ago
      But the real question is: will we make good pets?
    - akbarian 4y ago
      "We're like the dinosaurs. A few of us are looking up at the new light in the sky and thinking "Well, that's interesting" without much of an idea of what's actually incoming" That was the one of the most funniest and at the same time scariest thing I have ever read.
    - dmichulke 4y ago
      > because most of the population is spectacularly underpaid Underpaid compared to what? I'll start assuming here, so please forgive me: it sounds like you mean "we have a right to not be underpaid" which would be nice but I don't think there's anyone that can bend economic realities to make this right meaningful. It would be like "we have a right to eat meat" in prehistoric times which is simply a concept but it's not feasible simply because we call it a right. If we have a fixed amount of meat, someone will have to eat less if someone else eats more. Yes, we can increase meat production but then someone else will again eat less than the others ("underpaid" in terms of meat). > This makes it cheaper - so far - to use human labour than machine labour. Yes, new technology is equivalent to putting a maximum salary on human work, eventually it's just not efficient anymore to use humans. > It's about making all human activity obsolete I think what you're describing is paradise and I don't see it happening anytime soon. And if it happens, well, no work all play sounds like Star Trek and there we still needed humans to work in politics, defense and research... > All forms of culture I think the artist that works in spite of his low income is a counter-example. There are people that like to be "productive", e.g. by making music, ... > without much of an idea of what's actually incoming I don't see it incoming anytime soon. But if it happens, I think must people will kill themselves by overdosing on endorphines (using drugs, social media, opioids, whatever else comes along)
twelve40 4y ago
> Outsourcing was not a technology He's likely referring to not just the general concept of outsourcing, which has been around forever, but the programming offshoring scare of the early 2000's (which - the scare - was very real, having worked through it). It was very much caused by technology - messaging, Webex (before Skype even), source control and issue tracking getting mainstream adoption (Bugzilla, CVS, Subversion), combined with an influx of people into tech companies and the subsequent market bust in 2000. It was the first time when regular office workers (programmers in this case) realized they could be made completely disposable by the millions, and that would not have been possible before the technology i listed became mainstream.
- thrashh 4y ago
  Still, technology didn’t make for a significant productivity gain. One human wasn’t getting more done — one human was simply being paid less for the same work (arguably worse work). IMO it’s more of an example of globalization and specifically where globalization works and where it doesn’t.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Technologists making historical claims and arguments while not engaging with actual historians and also arguing that the humanities are a waste of time and money... name a better pair. Like, Stanford has some world class History of Technology scholars just down the road from Marc's home. He could go speak to any of them.

wardedVibe 4y ago

Everyone should read about the Luddites. Turns out this debate has happened before, except with more smashing.

imtringued 4y ago
Smashing? You mean armed government forces fighting against their citizens.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Kiro 4y ago

What do you mean? Every article about this makes the comparison with the Industrial Revolution, including this one.

dmichulke 4y ago
I think he means that the Industrial Revolution made a lot of human work obsolete, yet here we are almost without unemployment. Same for the invention of the wheel. So how was that possible? Turns out people didn't want to work less, they wanted more stuff. (Bigger houses, more houses, better food, health care, ...) The same will happen again with AI. Thanks to infinite human wants.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  We're only "without unemployment" because most of the population is spectacularly underpaid. This makes it cheaper - so far - to use human labour than machine labour. And we don't use human labour very efficiently. A lot of activities are pointless make-work or zero productivity wealth transfer. Which is almost the point of AI. It's not just about partial mechanisation or automation, which is what happened during the first Industrial Revolution. It's about making all human activity obsolete. Including all forms of mental and physical labour. All forms of culture. And all forms of economic and political organisation. There will be nothing humans can do which a machine won't do better. We're like the dinosaurs. A few of us are looking up at the new light in the sky and thinking "Well, that's interesting" without much of an idea of what's actually incoming.
  - dogcomplex 4y ago
    But the real question is: will we make good pets?
  - akbarian 4y ago
    "We're like the dinosaurs. A few of us are looking up at the new light in the sky and thinking "Well, that's interesting" without much of an idea of what's actually incoming" That was the one of the most funniest and at the same time scariest thing I have ever read.
  - dmichulke 4y ago
    > because most of the population is spectacularly underpaid Underpaid compared to what? I'll start assuming here, so please forgive me: it sounds like you mean "we have a right to not be underpaid" which would be nice but I don't think there's anyone that can bend economic realities to make this right meaningful. It would be like "we have a right to eat meat" in prehistoric times which is simply a concept but it's not feasible simply because we call it a right. If we have a fixed amount of meat, someone will have to eat less if someone else eats more. Yes, we can increase meat production but then someone else will again eat less than the others ("underpaid" in terms of meat). > This makes it cheaper - so far - to use human labour than machine labour. Yes, new technology is equivalent to putting a maximum salary on human work, eventually it's just not efficient anymore to use humans. > It's about making all human activity obsolete I think what you're describing is paradise and I don't see it happening anytime soon. And if it happens, well, no work all play sounds like Star Trek and there we still needed humans to work in politics, defense and research... > All forms of culture I think the artist that works in spite of his low income is a counter-example. There are people that like to be "productive", e.g. by making music, ... > without much of an idea of what's actually incoming I don't see it incoming anytime soon. But if it happens, I think must people will kill themselves by overdosing on endorphines (using drugs, social media, opioids, whatever else comes along)

twelve40 4y ago

> Outsourcing was not a technology He's likely referring to not just the general concept of outsourcing, which has been around forever, but the programming offshoring scare of the early 2000's (which - the scare - was very real, having worked through it). It was very much caused by technology - messaging, Webex (before Skype even), source control and issue tracking getting mainstream adoption (Bugzilla, CVS, Subversion), combined with an influx of people into tech companies and the subsequent market bust in 2000. It was the first time when regular office workers (programmers in this case) realized they could be made completely disposable by the millions, and that would not have been possible before the technology i listed became mainstream.

thrashh 4y ago
Still, technology didn’t make for a significant productivity gain. One human wasn’t getting more done — one human was simply being paid less for the same work (arguably worse work). IMO it’s more of an example of globalization and specifically where globalization works and where it doesn’t.

UncleMeat 4y ago

Technologists making historical claims and arguments while not engaging with actual historians and also arguing that the humanities are a waste of time and money... name a better pair. Like, Stanford has some world class History of Technology scholars just down the road from Marc's home. He could go speak to any of them.