3 ms·

> Who called anyone a name? Luddism? Yes, many HN participants are reacting to AI in a completely common rejection of change / challenge, and it recurs constant

> Who called anyone a name? Luddism? Yes, many HN participants are reacting to AI in a completely common rejection of change / challenge, and it recurs constantly. You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They didn't think the machines were evil or satanic, which is the common cultural read. They assumed (correctly) that the managerial class would take full advantage of increased productivity of lower-quality goods to flood the market with cheap shit that would put competitors out of business, and let them fire 4/5 of their workforces while doing so. And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. Luddites didn't oppose automation on the basis that machines are scary. They were the people who worked the machines that already existed at the time, after all. They opposed them on the basis that the greedy bastards who owned everything would be the only ones actually benefiting from automation, everyone else would get one kind of shaft or another, which again: is exactly what happened. This, actually is incredibly analogous to my opinions about LLM. It's an interesting tech that has applications but is already being situated to be the sole domain of massive hyperscalers and subject to every ounce of enshittification that follows every tech that goes that way, while putting creatives, and yes some coders, out of a job. So yes, it was name calling, but also I don't object to the association. In this case, I'm a Luddite. I am suspicious of the motivations and the beneficiaries of automation being forced into my industry and I'm not going to be quiet about it.

Clubber 2y ago
>And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. I think it's just about all industries these days. Yes, so many quote meanings have been malformed over the years, such as "a rolling stone gathers no moss," is considered good, while originally bad. "Blood is thicker than water," "Money is the root of all evil," etc. The Luddites were right.
llm_nerd 2y ago
>You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They were primarily opposed to automation because it devalued the work they did and the skills they held. That is the core essence of Luddism. They thought if they destroyed the machines, automation could be stopped. There were some post-facto justifications like product quality, but if that was true they'd have no problem out-competing the machines. Yes, it is Luddism that drives a lot of the AI sentiment seen on HN, and it is not only utterly futile and basically people convincing themselves and each other while the world moves on. There is no "name calling", and that particular blend of pearl clutching is absurd.
- numpad0 2y ago
  imho a lot of "luddism" so labeled by pro-ai bros is just people furious about shoddy artefacts that degenAI produce. That compares to original luddism, difference being the original 19th-century opposition against industrial revolution had proven them wrong with improved quality whereas genAI hasn't.
robotresearcher 2y ago
> the greedy bastards who owned everything would be the only ones actually benefiting from automation, […] which again: is exactly what happened. What also happened is that everyone can buy clothes incredibly cheaply. Which seems like a widespread benefit.

Clubber 2y ago

>And considering the state of the textile industry today, I think that was a pretty solid set of projections. I think it's just about all industries these days. Yes, so many quote meanings have been malformed over the years, such as "a rolling stone gathers no moss," is considered good, while originally bad. "Blood is thicker than water," "Money is the root of all evil," etc. The Luddites were right.

llm_nerd 2y ago

>You should read up on what Luddism and Luddists were actually about. They were primarily opposed to automation because it devalued the work they did and the skills they held. That is the core essence of Luddism. They thought if they destroyed the machines, automation could be stopped. There were some post-facto justifications like product quality, but if that was true they'd have no problem out-competing the machines. Yes, it is Luddism that drives a lot of the AI sentiment seen on HN, and it is not only utterly futile and basically people convincing themselves and each other while the world moves on. There is no "name calling", and that particular blend of pearl clutching is absurd.

numpad0 2y ago
imho a lot of "luddism" so labeled by pro-ai bros is just people furious about shoddy artefacts that degenAI produce. That compares to original luddism, difference being the original 19th-century opposition against industrial revolution had proven them wrong with improved quality whereas genAI hasn't.

robotresearcher 2y ago

> the greedy bastards who owned everything would be the only ones actually benefiting from automation, […] which again: is exactly what happened. What also happened is that everyone can buy clothes incredibly cheaply. Which seems like a widespread benefit.