TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

I'm a Luddite (and So Can You)

47 pointsby sandebert7 months ago

10 comments

Ukv7 months ago
I think anti-machine-learning suffers a similar problem to anti-GMO in that animosity directed primarily towards the technology itself easily loses aim on opposing exploitative power structures, sometimes instead even achieving the opposite.<p>I see big petitions against &quot;irresponsible open source models&quot;, calls for expansion of IP laws such as to make &quot;styles&quot; into private property, and praise of Getty&#x2F;Universal&#x2F;RIAA. Repeatedly the target of ire seems to be just someone experimenting with Stable Diffusion, or a free book analysis tool[0], with disproportionately little focus on issues like employee surveillance.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mashable.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;prosecraft-novel-ai-analysis-shut-down?test_uuid=01iI2GpryXngy77uIpA3Y4B&amp;test_variant=a" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mashable.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;prosecraft-novel-ai-analysis-sh...</a>
评论 #41996907 未加载
tipsytoad7 months ago
I wholly disagree with the comic, but a anti AI art take I’m more sympathetic to: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;soi&#x2F;status&#x2F;1815584824033177606?s=46" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;x.com&#x2F;soi&#x2F;status&#x2F;1815584824033177606?s=46</a>
bloppe7 months ago
This comic convincingly delivers a lot of half baked misplaced blamed for societal problems. Luddism harms workers. We know this because sometimes Luddism succeeds. Chinese artisan guilds were more powerful than their English Luddite counterparts during the industrial revolution, and successfully prevented new technologies from taking hold there. As a result, they avoided England&#x27;s growing pains, while condemning themselves and their children to lower economic growth and far more abject poverty.<p>There&#x27;s a much healthier way to deal with the growing pains: redistribution. When the return on capital is higher than the return on labor, we&#x27;re being failed by our tax regime. Redistributing gains means everyone benefits. Destroying machinery means everyone loses.<p>The weird tangents about AI art and phones for children are also dishonest. Copyright law and healthy child rearing are pretty orthogonal to job automation.<p>Ultimately, any society that chooses the path of Luddism will defeat itself, because there will always be another society that embraces technology, and they will not be subject to your regulations, and they will outcompete you, and I want to live in that society.
评论 #41998419 未加载
ttyprintk7 months ago
Outstanding comic. But we’re past the relatively simple circumstances where groups together watched industrialization. And we’re past the complicated circumstances in which the simply-most-industrial nation would decide a World War. We now need technology that subdues the emissions sputtered by more-economically-important technology. The people behind Ludd would recognize we have a duty to suppress the growth of one and emphasize the other. I wish there was a frame in the comic about that, rather than the irrelevant detail that the first followers of Ned Ludd were white males.
评论 #41994627 未加载
AlphaCerium7 months ago
wow. that almost perfectly summed up my thoughts about modern technology and its intentions.
shaftoe4447 months ago
Who is Ned Ludd?
评论 #41995600 未加载
trod1237 months ago
Not the best comic, this is very misleading albeit factual in only about 50% of its comic. Importantly, it ignores the drivers of technology in the first place, instead blaming the rich (visually), or the bourgeois (silently), and then makes a lot of suppositions that seem backed until you go and look at the credibility of the sources, or how the studies were managed; which are dismal and lack rational support in systems with islands of regularity (statistics and the three-body problem). The comic also ignores several very valid suppositions that could have been made about AI, completely ignoring them which is suspicious.<p>For example, nothing is said about inflation, or how inflationary economies based in money printing collapse to non-market socialism when the ponzi reaches the point of outflows exceeding inflows, this has happened quite a number of times beginning in the Song dynasty, albeit the effects are indirect and chaotic in the examples segmenting into hyper-inflation, or deflation with producers leaving the market when no profit can be made. This is relevant because of money printing today driving many of these companies to outcompete legitimate business (sieving the marketplace). Anytime there are constraints on only one party, the one with less constraints at a time wins.<p>The most modern iteration of this cycle involves private entities sieving the money supply through the FED&#x27;s primary dealers, stealing ever more from people holding that money, where the theft is delayed until they spend the printed money. Any company who must hold a leverage ratio greater than 1, who does so through preferential loans is state-run&#x2F;state-dependent apparatus. That&#x27;s non-market socialism when the participants leave and the market collapses to only state-run entities. If all competing companies cooperate like a single cartel, they aren&#x27;t participating in a market, they are just shifting inventory around and no economic calculation can take place. A market participant must be operating under an independent loss function, and for exchange to occur the loss, and profit functions must overlap as well as money storing its value that is earned by people (wages), sufficient to raise the next generation to the point where one has children (3 children, 1 wife).<p>It also doesn&#x27;t touch on corruption which is the natural outcome when a distribution of labor among people is not present in centralized systems. There must be an incentive for work to be done. Corruption is the slippage of a serpentine belt doing work. Eventually the belt gets so worn out you can run as much money through it and you never get any work done, this make sense because corruption is caustic.<p>It also doesn&#x27;t touch on how people feed themselves when work is no longer available. It focuses on work as personal growth demonizing repetitive work, which is a secondary to that first objective, Food. The secondary objective also shouldn&#x27;t be about growth, but instead ensuring that growth pipeline. Automation removes entry level jobs that people sharpen their teeth on to eventually become experts. If you cut off the supply, eventually the experts age and die and you get collapse.<p>When all is boiled down, the comic follows almost the exact same rhetoric found in chinese&#x2F;marxist soft propaganda (the criteria pointing to this is in the absence of common things not mentioned, which results in making it obscure for those unaware). The problem with the entire narrative is that the solutions proposed will never come into being because it doesn&#x27;t address what is driving these dynamics in the first place.<p>Luddism as portrayed is just another historic variation on socialism, which resulted in syndicalism (this fails to in more brittle ways), it wasn&#x27;t the answer before because those type of systems fail in 6 intractable, impossible to solve ways (Mises), and yet that is the only bread crumb towards a solution that it pushes you towards. A known-failed solution, while trying to make it hip or critical again as a label. Ironically, capitalism at the extremes also results in socialism. If one were to graph out from the lowest wage earners to the highest, everything but the middle (the fat ends of the graph), are where socialism based systems come from among the population, and we know they fail in a number of ways (Menger, Mises).<p>If you don&#x27;t know what and how the dynamics are being driven, you can&#x27;t ever come up with a viable solution, rationally, and economic systems are life-critical systems, so you can&#x27;t afford to play at chance. The consequences are too dire if you do. Large percentages of the population die as in Mao&#x27;s Famine, The Soviet Famine of 1921, and other crises faced by the red perils.<p>Overall I found this is a waste of time to read. It doesn&#x27;t accurately describe the issues. It dovetails you into false solutions, where you need to know something to recognize it, and it makes apples to oranges comparisons. Its important to push objective information to people based in fact and truth, anyone reading this and accepting it as truth, not knowing any better would be deluded, and become delusional about this subject matter. There are already too many deluded people in the world. Lets vote for rationalism.<p>Honestly, I wish I could get my reading time back. I really dislike being bombarded with propaganda that pretends to be something else deceitfully.
purplethinking7 months ago
As a long time HN user, it&#x27;s quite disturbing to see the slow descent of this community into a world view dominated by luddism, degrowth, anti-technology and anti-natalism. All these things seem to go hand in hand in the ideology of today&#x27;s left.<p>I can just play out this conversation in my head, I know exactly how it goes, every time<p>Me: we are dead by default, even if climate change doesn&#x27;t kill us then population collapse will, or a natural disaster. The only way forward is to increase our technological power as a civilization and take control of our environment, we can&#x27;t go back<p>Them: What&#x27;s so bad about a declining population? We need fewer people on this earth to make life sustainable<p>Me: OK, we can discuss what&#x27;s the optimal number of humans, but the population cliff that we&#x27;re heading towards only means one thing: civilizational collapse. We need robotics to replace the work of the non-existant youth, and we need AI to cure aging<p>Them: it&#x27;s selfish to have children anyway, humans are a virus<p>Me: Ok, so you&#x27;re just anti-humanity? Why don&#x27;t you start by offing yourself first then?<p>Them: Whatever, Elon-Stan
评论 #41998266 未加载
评论 #41997757 未加载
dublin7 months ago
Wow. Racist framing, much?<p>I&#x27;m a robotics engineer trained back in the 80s, but still working with pretty cutting edge stuff today. It&#x27;s true that automation poorly thought out can be anti-human, but to assume that it&#x27;s inherently racist is just raw woke racism at its purest.<p>Good automation solutions reduce or eliminate mindless, menial drudge work and free up people to things that people are better at than machines - dream, think, and make it happen. And IMO, it will still be a long time before the machines are better than people at those sorts of jobs.<p>Even our best AIs don&#x27;t really understand, they just mimic their training set.
评论 #41998536 未加载
Nasrudith7 months ago
Wow, this is an impressive mix of smugness, pretension, and willful ignorance and stupidity.