[fullshark]

They are both right, the revolution needs to be oriented for ordinary people and college kids to benefit from it or else their attitude is wholly justified. There's basically no reason for them to cheer on a future of trillion dollar corporations using AI services to battle for knowledge work market share.

[rgbrenner]

was the industrial revolution oriented for ordinary people at the time it occurred? were a lot of workers buying flying shuttles in the 1700s?

[happytoexplain]

I'm confused - you're suggesting that past suffering justifies present suffering?

[jxh11]

My first day of orientation at the CS dept was at the height of the dot com crash. I think I got told by 20+ seniors that day to drop out before paying a single bill. That it was all pointless and the internet was an over valued bubble and no one was getting hired. Mood on campus was scary for almost two years post the crash. If we had social media back then I can only imagine how much more fears would have been amplified.

[KK7NIL]

He's pointing out that labor has always opposed labor saving technology, despite that being the basis of our modern quality of life.

[ryandrake]

In the past, "labor saving technology" has always spawned alternate jobs that people could take with some retraining. This time it might be truly different. If one day AI can actually do all knowledge work, there might not be anything left for former knowledge workers to do. There's no physical law that says new technology necessarily produces 1:1 new, different jobs.

[ForHackernews]

Most jobs for most of human history have not been "knowledge work" involving symbolic manipulation. Maybe all the marketers, business analysts and software engineers of the world can take up their true callings as plumbers, carpenters and dishwasher repair people.

[thrance]

You think that all knowledge workers of the world will accept their social and material downgrades without making wave? That they'll all be able to find manual work?

[KK7NIL]

> In the past, "labor saving technology" has always spawned alternate jobs that people could take with some retraining.

Labor saving technology does not create enough alternative jobs to employ all those that it displaced, otherwise it wouldn't be labor saving.

Instead, the surplus created by these technologies allows that society to deploy labor on less immediately necessary jobs. These jobs weren't created by the technology, they were always there, but society did not have the resources to staff them (think education, research, academia, merchants, etc.)

This dynamic has been true since pre-historic times, so you'll need some extraordinary evidence if you want us to believe this time is different.

[hello_moto]

Many people who pointed out the Industrial Revolution becomes the basis of modern quality of life skip what happened in between the 17xx-18xx until today.

Things like Unions, Wars, etc.

What comes after new technology has always been the elite class owning them all and forcing everybody else to suffer until something managed the distribution of resources slightly better (War forces that).

[pixl97]

I mean the Luddites were mad for a reason, and many may forget the industrial revolution was a rather bloody affair.

Avoiding a repeat of that would be great while also increasing productivity would be good.

[dreamcompiler]

The Luddites were mad not because the machines put them out of work but because the machines were supremely shitty. The machines were dangerous and they made lousy products that reflected a lack of pride in workmanship.

The Luddites were all for saving labor, but not if enshittified products and slavery to unreliable machines were the price.

Sounds pretty familiar to me.

[agentultra]

Many Luddites were protesting labor conditions. At the time the majority of labor laws were being written by the capital class with the help of political leaders and the constabulary. Common complaints were working hours, child labor, safety, wages, and protection from furlough. There were some who protested the quality of the product the machines created... but I would say those are the minority.

Destroying the machines was a way to gain leverage for a class of people who had none. People had been using looms for centuries. It wasn't the technology that was the problem... that's what the victors, the capitalists, have written was the reason.

[ForHackernews]

No, that's why unions exist.

[hello_moto]

Unions and worker's rights exist because workers were exploited to the max during the Industrial Revolution.

[ForHackernews]

yes.