I test drove the first-generation Tesla Roadster. I once lived on Soylent powder shakes for a month. My Twitter account is almost old enough to drive. I wrote a book about the iPhone.
Also, I’m a Luddite. That’s not the contradiction that it might sound like. The original Luddites did not hate technology. Most were skilled machine operators. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, what they objected to were the specific ways that tech was being used to undermine their status, upend their communities and destroy their livelihoods. So they took sledgehammers to the mechanized looms used to exploit them.
I work in ML and AI and I strongly believe that reduced hours, wfh and universal basic income are needed. All new technologies can help us living a better life, it doesn’t make sense using them to build a worst society
All new technologies can help us living a better life, it doesn’t make sense using them to build a worst society
It does if all you care about is short-term profit. Gotta make them stockholders happy before they bail.
deleted by creator
It’s like saying that someone who built the steam engine and the engineers building trains actively killed native Americans is US, because trains helped colonization of north America. The steam engine and trains were a great thing. Politics must deal with social changes. Because we know that any technological advance can result in social instability if left in the hand of wrong people.
This is exactly the topic of the linked article. Nothing wrong with ML, AI and technology as is. Wrong applications are the problem
Edit. For context https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/TRR
deleted by creator
I think you need a little more help with logic and reading comprehension before you respond so condescendingly.
OP’s point is that the technology will not create a paradise or hell. It is the political environment that does that. The technology is simply a tool that will be used.
But if the political environment is oppressive, do we want to give it another tool and just be like “now be sure to use it for good”.
I agree that no technology is inherently evil, not even something like the atomic bomb. But you have to consider the actual and likely future environment that the technology will be in. And this state of regulatory capture, let the largest pocket book have the most speech, ever consolidating wealth and power situation is not one in which I believe we should be contributing new potentially oppressive technologies. We should be hindering them as we simultaneously work to reform our government and economic structure.
I am well, thanks for asking.
Currently the tech I am a huge fan of is helping me a lot handling the daily business. It has been a godsend for my mental health. It is helping me in a lot of areas I struggle with (paper work and meaningless corporate processes), it helps me better organizing my work, and it support me in areas where I used to heavily rely on Google and forums. It helps me to learn and improve. Overall I am a happy chatgpt customer.
Other than that, we don’t have AI yet, still layoffs are at record number. Layoffs and suffering are not caused by AI, or whatever fancy tech. They are caused by current economic system that cannot redistribute wealth and business practices built to concentrate wealth. They’ve been there before AI, they’ll be there after AI.
If you believe that blocking AI will change anything… No it won’t. It won’t change anything.
This is uniquely naïve to a frankly disturbing degree. Your work is actively going to kill people across the developed world when they fall out of the workforce with zero replacement jobs nor opportunities.
Huh. Sounds like a good argument for a UBI.
deleted by creator
I don’t pretend to know the future. Things can change radically or things can stay the same for decades. I see no reason to assume anything. I am not optimistic, but I am not going to stop fighting just because of that.
I wasn’t optimistic about stopping the war in Iraq. I still marched against it. I wasn’t optimistic in SCOTUS not ending Roe v. Wade. I still marched against it.
Maybe you don’t see the point of fighting even when change isn’t likely, but making a mark on history is worth something.
Remember this man? He knew he was not going to win. He did it anyway.
But are you so naïve to think that will ever happen in the near future?
No one is committing to a firm prediction.
The objectives for workers to pursue are, on the broadest level, quite apparent.
If workers fail to recognize the objectives, and of the necessity for direct and coordinated action toward achieving them, then they will fail to stop elites from consuming and eventually depleting the resources and populations of the planet, for their own hubris and greed.
In such a case, there is no doubt elites will not stop themselves.
If your first reaction to criticism is to discount it as artificial I would suggest taking stock of yourself and how you engage in discussions.
AI/ML is an extremely broad field, while some assholes do have terrible motives most of the work is tool building. We build tools to help do things that are monotonous or difficult for humans to do so people can focus on more creative work… while acknowledging that the field carries some extreme dangers if misused. AI alone isn’t the problem, the concentration of wealth is devastating to society and we need to fix that before AI makes it worse - but AI itself is a tool that can be used for good.
deleted by creator
I think you’re taking a far too narrow view if you can state that it’s not positive. At my company we’ve managed to drastically reduce the amount of dumb menial stuff that people have to do and we haven’t fired people when we’ve improved productivity. In some cases AI is going to be terribly misused but it’s a tool and we should use it to make people’s lives better.
Maybe your view is too narrow if it’s fueled by personal anecdotes. Technology not hurting you is just a data point, not a conclusion. Typically when we say positive, we really mean “net positive” and that’s unknown. And the argument is not that we shouldn’t use tools to make our lives better. It’s OK to recognize that tools can be harmful and seek to reduce that harm.
I agree that this tool could be used to cause great harm, similar to most of our other tools. The problem isn’t with the tool though, this tool could be a great gift to all of us, the problem is with the people who choose how the tool is used. Those people are causing massive social issues whether we have the tool or not.
But, I reject the previous statement that the tool will be a net negative. We have the power to fix our social issues and that will allow the tool to be a force for good.
You’re surprised keep the status quo is a controversial opinion in a work reform subreddit?
Where in a non-AI world do you imagine workers as gaining the things you say they can’t post?
deleted by creator
What part of work reform do you think entails keeping things the same?
It’s not even surprising, is it? Good ol Marx couldn’t foresee AI but could see the thorough proletarianization of us all. This is just the latest development.
deleted by creator
I’m not optimistic. I’m pessimistic. But that doesn’t mean I give up.
True. I guess it’s these types that are the real accelerationists for rapidly sowing discontent via creating super efficient means of disenfranchising us all lol.
This whole discussion seems to not be about any underlying disagreement about tech and how it can have negative impacts on society (while giving the impression that it is about that), but rather the tone of the words used to expressed the idea. You keep having to respond to people who misunderstood your intentions because you did a pretty poor job of making it clear what your disagreements with Zeth0s were, so people assumed it was disagreeing with what he said (for good reason given how you start your comment).
Liberal arts training?
Did you drop this /s?
Luddites weren’t stupid for the problems they noticed. They were stupid for not taking the fight directly to those in power. Fighting for a better status quo should never have to involve directly attacking a company. In fact, change can happen without targeting any specific company. Leave that to specific workers and unions.
The solution is to empower workers so it’s not the worker themselves who has to bust kneecaps just to get paid… Destroying specific companies does less than nothing. Attacking technology does nothing but set it back. Destroying machinery pays no one
It paints workers as unjustly entitled and uppity, just like when protests turn in to riots. Does a riot mean the protest stood for nothing? No! Does the riot make many people assume the protest stood for nothing? Yes. Pick your targets wisely. More wisely than Luddites of the past.
I’ve been looking at ways to leverage open source technology to enable local economies. I’m starting with working with maker spaces
can you elaborate further? you got my curiosity and attention.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have an Amazon-like app that buys from the stores around us.
Or services like door dash/Uber/etc that are managed inside the community with tools shared with other communities.
It is an idea that would pair well with locally managed fiber (municipal or local business), and community clouds.
I’m starting with makerspaces, but I could see it operating without them too.
I’ve written about it: https://medium.com/tech-stoa/the-smoltech-answer-featuring-worcshop-806d8306eae
Excellent piece!
I’ve been thinking about it & you’ve convinced me (or hammered it harder in place in my brain): We need makerspaces globally.
Âll local, obviously.
To do: search or create makerspaces in the Western US.
Thank you!
I’m currently working on preparing for a talk I’m given on the topic for the Massachusetts Pirate party on Saturday.
/* they took sledgehammers to the mechanized looms used to exploit them whenever those looms were owned by employers who were felt to be exploitative of their employees.
The interesting thing is how one defines exploitative. I’ve seen ex-mining communities where the population moved in and grew with the industry but, since the mines closed, many had stayed in place eking by on very meager state benefits, and not traveled to find work as their forebears had. To be abundantly clear: I’m not making any judgement of right or wrong, I’m just suggesting that (at least for populations who have a right to freedom of movement) there are opportunities for a little more colour to be put on OP’s canvas.
Define freedom of movement?
Because last I checked, moving a family was expensive and far from free. And last I checked, capitalist’s were still leveraging this lack of financial freedom to exploit workers.
So, I think the authors use of language was spot on personally.
Understood.
I think we’re talking about two very different things. Apologies, language is a crude instrument. I should have made it more clear. I was referring to the right to freedom of movement. This concept is defined different ways in different countries/bodies of law. There’s a great wikipedia article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
From OP’s text, I inferred that they clearly understood the luddites only smashed the technical kit of employers who the luddites felt exploited their workforce. I’m not certain that that concept of their operation would be grasped by a reader that had not heard about the luddites prior to reading OP’s words.
I work in software, and I used to look down on luddites. Then I learned what they actually stood for and now I agree with them.
I personally prefer the term “Butlerian Jihadist” myself.
Hell yes! Join us, friends!
