[bloody-crow]

> The Luddites, Brian shows, weren’t anti-technology. In fact, they embraced new machines that helped them do their jobs better. They were against machines that destroyed workers’ livelihoods and rendered their skills useless. The Luddites rejected technology when it was used to enrich capitalists at the expense of laborers.

I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor. If you're pro technology only until it makes you, the human, redundant, you're anti-technology.

It's a weak attempt to reframe people upset about losing job market relevancy as some noble human rights advocates.

[foul]

>I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor. If you're pro technology only until it makes you, the human, redundant, you're anti-technology.

This smells like the "Yet you participate in society, curious!" comic. Is this just for upvotes' sake? "Job market relevancy" during George IV meant returning to the coal mines at best.

[namaria]

Trying to make a point about a supposed Historical fact (Luddites were anti technology?) without any historical context is disingenuous.

Do you know about actual Luddite activity and what sources do you have and how do you interpret them? Or are you just making a point in a vacuum about your opinion on semantics?

[bloody-crow]

> Do you know about actual Luddite activity and what sources do you have and how do you interpret them? Or are you just making a point in a vacuum about your opinion on semantics?

The latter obviously. I'm not arguing with Luddite philosophy, but more with the author of the article making a claim that they were not anti-technology and then proceeding to explain how they absolutely were.

[hnfong]

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't anti-technology per your definition.

Are you sure you're not an AI advocating for a world ruled by AI capitalists where us primitive humans have no role whatsoever? :P

[bloody-crow]

The moment technology can do my job better/cheaper than I do, I don't see a moral argument to continue being employed and costing my employer more money for less productivity. Obviously, it'd be non-ideal for me to lose income, but I'm not conceited enough to insist to continue being paid by providing sub-par performance.

My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my employer would be responsible for solving it for me.

[supertimor]

Ok, but say 50% of jobs become replaced by AI, then what?Even 10% or 20% of jobs replaced would have huge implications for our current society. We don’t have any solutions in place for that inevitability, especially at the rate AI technology is increasing. And it will eventually become a problem for your employer as well when a large portion of the population can no longer afford your employer’s products or services.

[AstralStorm]

Standard equilibrium analysis proves that the efficiency gain is supposed to cut the prices to material cost, including cutting the material cost.

Of course actual capital fights tooth and nail to prevent this, even if this means literally getting people to starve and unable to earn with a job, even agricultural.

There are known fixes, starting from making basic services and items free (eating the material cost which is pennies actually), employing more people running these as they're currently all understaffed.

Abundance is the expected outcome of the technology. Including abundance of leisure time. Capitalism however requires scarcity for profit and oppression to keep the rich special.

We have an abundance of housing, so why are some unhoused? We have an overabundance of food but some people are hungry and malnourished. Things might get more dicey with water soon.

[bloody-crow]

Right, but I don't feel like it's the employers responsibility to be my economic safety net. There's a million ways to approach this problem without having workers keep pretending they're still relevant and collecting a paycheck for something technology can do better.

At some 90% of human labor would become obsolete and we as a society should spend some time planning how to handle this situation. UBI is one such solution.

I think that continue paying people doing meaningless work just to preserve their dignity is stupid and counterproductive.

[hnfong]

I don't think the Luddite position is that the employer has a moral responsibility to keep their employees employed.

As you said, it's "we as a society" needs to figure out a solution. If society ignores this problem, then I think the anti-technology aspect of Luddism is at least understandable IMHO.