4 ms·

Products in most organizations are an end to making profit. The job value of an SWE is to maximize that profit. It doesn't matter if the product is better to u

by eesmith 21d ago

Products in most organizations are an end to making profit. The job value of an SWE is to maximize that profit. It doesn't matter if the product is better to use, faster, with more features users like - that's an early 20th century model of value production. What matters is how much money the company can extract from its customers, and how little it can pay its employees. Use dark patterns, increase lock-in, and switch to a rental system with recurrent payments. Minimize employee benefits, require broad non-compete agreements, have long vesting periods and lay people off before its reached, or simply fire them and order the others to pick up the slack using AI. If you want to write software meant to please the user, do that for fun in your spare time -- though remember that your employer still owns your IP, so it's not like you can create a market competitor. Alas, the above was meant in sarcasm but is all too true. The Luddites were not opposed to machines. They were opposed to bad labor practices, with machine-breaking as way of applying pressure on employers.

SideQuark 21d ago
> The Luddites were not opposed to machines. In the sense they were not opposed to all machines as a concept. They were definitely against machines they thought reduced their labor value: "They wrecked specific types of machinery that posed a threat to the particular industrial interests in each region. In the Midlands, these were the "wide" knitting frames used to make cheap and inferior lace articles.[22] In the North West, weavers sought to eliminate the steam-powered looms threatening wages in the cotton trade. In Yorkshire, workers opposed the use of shearing frames and gig mills to finish woollen cloth.[23]" Citations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites
- eesmith 21d ago
  Yes, that's what I wrote. "They were opposed to bad labor practices, with machine-breaking as way of applying pressure on employers." Otherwise it would be like claiming that an industrial union is opposed to people working in factories by pointing to a strike action and concluding they members just want to stand around outside the factory instead of work. Recall that my comment is in response to "it is economically infeasible for me to be a luddite". If that means something like "infeasible for me to oppose bad labor practices" then collective action is the typical response to bad labor practices. If that means something like "infeasible for me to destroy the employer's use of AI" then I think that's mistaking what Luddites did as being the Luddite goal.
  - SideQuark 20d ago
    You wrote "The Luddites were not opposed to machines." What you wrote makes it sound as if there was no problems with machines, only with labor practices. That's simply misleading to untrue in this chain. You can say Luddites were not only opposed to machines they thought cost them (which was the main reason they started the trouble they did at that point), but they also (insert labor practices). Read their writings or contemporary reports. The wiki page has ample references to good material.
    - eesmith 20d ago
      Quoting the Wikipedia link you gave: "Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labour practices of the time". How is that meaningfully different than what I wrote?
      - SideQuark 17d ago
        It’s the difference between “he hates food” and “he hates some food”. If you don’t see the first as a not honest, misleading restatement of the latter, then we think fundamentally differently about accurate statements.
        eesmith 16d ago
        It's the difference between "Paul McCartney is not opposed to food" and "Paul McCartney is opposed to eating meat." Here's a paragraph from p45 of my paperback edition of "The AI Con" on the Luddites: "But Luddites were not against technology. Some Luddites, weavers in particular, were into technologies that helped evaluate the quality of their work, for instance, being able to count the number of threads per inch, such that they could fetch a higher prices at the market. Luddites were instead against technologies of control and coercion, and concerned about the loss of jobs, health, and community." I do not think your assessment of my statement is correct.

by eesmith 21d ago

SideQuark 21d ago

> The Luddites were not opposed to machines. In the sense they were not opposed to all machines as a concept. They were definitely against machines they thought reduced their labor value: "They wrecked specific types of machinery that posed a threat to the particular industrial interests in each region. In the Midlands, these were the "wide" knitting frames used to make cheap and inferior lace articles.[22] In the North West, weavers sought to eliminate the steam-powered looms threatening wages in the cotton trade. In Yorkshire, workers opposed the use of shearing frames and gig mills to finish woollen cloth.[23]" Citations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites

eesmith 21d ago
Yes, that's what I wrote. "They were opposed to bad labor practices, with machine-breaking as way of applying pressure on employers." Otherwise it would be like claiming that an industrial union is opposed to people working in factories by pointing to a strike action and concluding they members just want to stand around outside the factory instead of work. Recall that my comment is in response to "it is economically infeasible for me to be a luddite". If that means something like "infeasible for me to oppose bad labor practices" then collective action is the typical response to bad labor practices. If that means something like "infeasible for me to destroy the employer's use of AI" then I think that's mistaking what Luddites did as being the Luddite goal.
- SideQuark 20d ago
  You wrote "The Luddites were not opposed to machines." What you wrote makes it sound as if there was no problems with machines, only with labor practices. That's simply misleading to untrue in this chain. You can say Luddites were not only opposed to machines they thought cost them (which was the main reason they started the trouble they did at that point), but they also (insert labor practices). Read their writings or contemporary reports. The wiki page has ample references to good material.
  - eesmith 20d ago
    Quoting the Wikipedia link you gave: "Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labour practices of the time". How is that meaningfully different than what I wrote?
    - SideQuark 17d ago
      It’s the difference between “he hates food” and “he hates some food”. If you don’t see the first as a not honest, misleading restatement of the latter, then we think fundamentally differently about accurate statements.
      - eesmith 16d ago
        It's the difference between "Paul McCartney is not opposed to food" and "Paul McCartney is opposed to eating meat." Here's a paragraph from p45 of my paperback edition of "The AI Con" on the Luddites: "But Luddites were not against technology. Some Luddites, weavers in particular, were into technologies that helped evaluate the quality of their work, for instance, being able to count the number of threads per inch, such that they could fetch a higher prices at the market. Luddites were instead against technologies of control and coercion, and concerned about the loss of jobs, health, and community." I do not think your assessment of my statement is correct.