4 ms·

It’s hilarious that people confidently compare the anti-AI crowd to the Luddite movement, while at the same time demonstrating they know absolutely nothing abou

It’s hilarious that people confidently compare the anti-AI crowd to the Luddite movement, while at the same time demonstrating they know absolutely nothing about its actual history. Workers were not “terrified of mechanical looms,” but outraged that they were used to reduce pay and working conditions, instead of improve them. Of course the same will be true of AI, but I don’t expect the “can’t be bothered to even read the Wikipedia entry” crowd to understand this.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago
It's funny in a sickening but not unexpected way that a crowd that professes to be more learned, and interested in learning, than most others, chooses to ignore this on a consistent basis. They know they're building a world of pain, they just think if they ignore it and feign ignorance of it that they can launder their consciences.
semiquaver 3y ago
> Workers were not “terrified of mechanical looms,” but outraged that they were used to reduce pay and working conditions, instead of improve them. This is consistent with what I wrote. They were terrified of their jobs vanishing and sought to stop this. Ultimately it’s not realistic to prohibit useful new technology, even if it has harmful effects on some groups. I’m sympathetic to people that are fearful of new technology that will obviously have a major impact on our society but there’s a reason Luddite is a shorthand for futile technological obstructionism. It’s not a matter of pro vs anti AI and I wouldn’t put myself in either camp, it’s a matter of naïveté vs realism about how the world works.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  The ignorance of history continues. The Luddites were not naive, but less successful in labor organizing than, say, their French counterparts, who quite successfully resisted downward pressure on wages and working conditions, allowing a more gradual transition to the new technologies. As a result, they likewise did not suffer much of the injury, cruelty, and dispossession that was inflicted on their counterparts in their English working class. The Luddite movement is more popularly know for precisely this reason: it was crushed and humiliated by the ruling class, and thus became useful for those interests to cite as an example of what happens when you oppose them vs. those who practiced solidarity, overcame them, and preserved more of their dignity and quality of life. Letting the wealthy and powerful inflict whatever they want on you is not realism. It’s cowardice.
JohnFen 3y ago
People are using the term "luddite" as a means to trivialize and dismiss real concerns others have. It's just an insult that deserves to be ignored, nothing more.

CatWChainsaw 3y ago

It's funny in a sickening but not unexpected way that a crowd that professes to be more learned, and interested in learning, than most others, chooses to ignore this on a consistent basis. They know they're building a world of pain, they just think if they ignore it and feign ignorance of it that they can launder their consciences.

semiquaver 3y ago

> Workers were not “terrified of mechanical looms,” but outraged that they were used to reduce pay and working conditions, instead of improve them. This is consistent with what I wrote. They were terrified of their jobs vanishing and sought to stop this. Ultimately it’s not realistic to prohibit useful new technology, even if it has harmful effects on some groups. I’m sympathetic to people that are fearful of new technology that will obviously have a major impact on our society but there’s a reason Luddite is a shorthand for futile technological obstructionism. It’s not a matter of pro vs anti AI and I wouldn’t put myself in either camp, it’s a matter of naïveté vs realism about how the world works.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bugglebeetle 3y ago
The ignorance of history continues. The Luddites were not naive, but less successful in labor organizing than, say, their French counterparts, who quite successfully resisted downward pressure on wages and working conditions, allowing a more gradual transition to the new technologies. As a result, they likewise did not suffer much of the injury, cruelty, and dispossession that was inflicted on their counterparts in their English working class. The Luddite movement is more popularly know for precisely this reason: it was crushed and humiliated by the ruling class, and thus became useful for those interests to cite as an example of what happens when you oppose them vs. those who practiced solidarity, overcame them, and preserved more of their dignity and quality of life. Letting the wealthy and powerful inflict whatever they want on you is not realism. It’s cowardice.

JohnFen 3y ago

People are using the term "luddite" as a means to trivialize and dismiss real concerns others have. It's just an insult that deserves to be ignored, nothing more.