[darthoctopus]

that is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…

[Kiro]

I think we should be careful attributing too much idealism to it. The Luddites were not a unified movement and people had much more urgent concerns than thinking about technological progress from a sociocentric perspective. Considering the time period with the Napoleonic Wars as backdrop I don't think anyone can blame them for simply being angry and wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job.

[serial_dev]

And an important note: history is written by the victors. Additionally, just like how today some people have a caricatured understanding of the “other” side (whatever that might be), understanding what Luddites thoughts and motivations were through the lens of their victor opponents will inevitably create a biased, harsh picture of them.

[leptons]

>wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job.

Wondering how long before people start setting datacenters on fire.

[pydry]

Exactly, the luddites werent especially anti technology. Smashing stocking frames for them was a tactic to drive up their wages.

Just as the fallout of the napoleonic war was used as a means of driving down their wages. The only difference is that tactic didnt get employers executed.

It's always been in the interests of capital to nudge the pitchforks away from their hides in the direction of the machines, and to always try and recharacterize anti capitalist movements as anti technology.

In 2010 I remember a particularly stupid example where Forbes declared anti Uber protestors were "anti smartphone".

Sadly most people dont seem to be smart enough to not fall for this.

[orourke]

I think the concern in this case is that, unlike before where machines were built for other people to use, we’re now building machines that may be able to use themselves.

[Jordan-117]

Not that much of a difference tbh. If one traditional machine allows one worker to do the work of twenty in half the time, that's still a big net loss in those jobs, even if it technically creates one.

The real issue is that AI/robotics are machines that can theoretically replace any job -- at a certain point, there's nowhere for people to reskill to. The fact that it's been most disruptive in fields that have always been seen as immune to automation kind of underscores that point.

[fragmede]

The concern is the same, people want to be taken care of by society, even if they don't have a job, for whatever reason.

[ebcase]

Glad to see the Luddites getting a shout out here.

This is a new / recent book about the Luddite movement and it’s similarities to the direction we are headed due to LLMs:

https://www.littlebrown.com/titles/brian-merchant/blood-in-t...

Enjoyed the book and learned a lot from it!

[johnwheeler]

There’s a difference between something and everything though

[scotty79]

Somehow modern Luddite messaging doesn't communicate that clearly either. Instead of "where's my fair share of AI benefits?" we hear "AI is evil, pls don't replace us".

[freeone3000]

Yes. The workers don't want to be replaced by machines. This is Luddism.

[happytoexplain]

>pls don't replace us

Yeah, how dare they not want to lose their careers.

Losing a bunch of jobs in a short period is terrible. Losing a bunch of careers in a short period is a catastrophe.

Also, this is dishonest - nobody is confused about why people don't like AI replacing/reducing some jobs and forms of art, no matter what words they use to describe their feelings (or how you choose to paraphrase those words).

[CamperBob2]

Would we be better off today if the Luddites had prevailed?

No?

Well, what's different this time?

Oh, wait, maybe they did prevail after all. I own my means of production, even though I'm by no means a powerful, filthy-rich capitalist or industrialist. So thanks, Ned -- I guess it all worked out for the best!

[marnett]

The Amish seem to be doing fine — and I don’t know if their way of life is under as much existential risk of upheaval and change as everyone else’s