At some point in the last decade, the ostensive ostensible goal of automation evolved from savings us from unwanted labor to keeping us from ever doing anything.
If this whole AI craze was actually about replacing labor, I honestly believe it would have started with firing and automating CEOs.
I’m not even saying that as a “eat the rich” shtick - AI is great at analyzing huge datasets and determining a conclusion from the results. It would obviously need refinement, but that would probably be the major role I could see it immediately taking over.
I’ve worked at places where the CEO being removed without a replacement would have had the company run markedly better. So replacing a CEO with just a license to stock ChatGPT would be a net benefit to probably a significant number of corporations.
Except corporations aren’t meant to make a profit, they’re meant to make the executives at the top a profit. Everything else is just a mechanism to do that.
If AI begins to replaces CEO’s then the whole fantasy of capitalistic meritocracy with the most ‘skilled’ or ‘educated’ earning their place at the top falls apart.
And your ancestors also subsistence farmed and didn’t have all the technology you do.
Look I’m as big a critics of our modern capital-industrial system as the next person but it’s crazy to not see how technology has made people more productive and given us more wealth.
It is however quite true that people during the industrial revolution itself were working way more hours than previously which is why the whole labor movement kicked off. We appreciate the gains of previous ancestors fighting for our labor rights.
Could things be better? Certainly. Is automation being maliciously targeted towards art and creativity at the expense of not increasing productivity and reducing drudgery? No.
as a luddite you should know that automation‘s goal never was to save us from unwanted labour. But of course this would have to be accomplished first, before your second assumption can ever come true.
I read an article (probably linked to from here) about how “Luddite” isn’t the insult many people think it is. Luddites weren’t dumb, or superstitious and needlessly afraid of technology.
The historical Luddites were knowledgeable regarding technology. They weren’t anti-technology in general, they simply didn’t trust the rich and powerful to use it in a way that genuinely benefited society as a whole. Unfortunately, capitalists did what capitalists always do - they used machines to churn out inferior goods and cut worker pay. That’s why Luddites destroyed/sabotaged machines.
After learning that, I started considering Luddite a compliment.
Cool!
I‘d also see it as a compliment. That‘s why I was surprised that a fellow luddite would interpret it differently. Alas, it was just this little word that made us stumble.
But yeah, the Luddites knew that machines weren‘t evil. But that they would be used to generate more profit and not to lessen their toil
Oh huh TIL. I also looked it up, and it seems like a real doozy of a word. I had no idea. Looks some some dictionaries say that the two words are interchangeable, whereas others distinguish between them, and in the latter case, I used the wrong one. Language is fun!
At some point in the last decade, the
ostensiveostensible goal of automation evolved from savings us from unwanted labor to keeping us from ever doing anything.It says something important about this “revolution” that it’s starting with replacement/replication of art, not labor or manual drudgery work.
If this whole AI craze was actually about replacing labor, I honestly believe it would have started with firing and automating CEOs.
I’m not even saying that as a “eat the rich” shtick - AI is great at analyzing huge datasets and determining a conclusion from the results. It would obviously need refinement, but that would probably be the major role I could see it immediately taking over.
I’ve worked at places where the CEO being removed without a replacement would have had the company run markedly better. So replacing a CEO with just a license to stock ChatGPT would be a net benefit to probably a significant number of corporations.
Except corporations aren’t meant to make a profit, they’re meant to make the executives at the top a profit. Everything else is just a mechanism to do that.
If AI begins to replaces CEO’s then the whole fantasy of capitalistic meritocracy with the most ‘skilled’ or ‘educated’ earning their place at the top falls apart.
This will not happen unless it is forced to.
Except in fact we have just seen 2 centuries of drudgery automated. Have you seen a combine harvester?
So many machines, yet I’m working more hours than my ancestors.
And your ancestors also subsistence farmed and didn’t have all the technology you do.
Look I’m as big a critics of our modern capital-industrial system as the next person but it’s crazy to not see how technology has made people more productive and given us more wealth.
Also the idea that peasants had lore days off is sorts debunked: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/kks6tq/comment/gh4oh5c
It is however quite true that people during the industrial revolution itself were working way more hours than previously which is why the whole labor movement kicked off. We appreciate the gains of previous ancestors fighting for our labor rights.
Could things be better? Certainly. Is automation being maliciously targeted towards art and creativity at the expense of not increasing productivity and reducing drudgery? No.
it’s a crying shame that the lion’s share of all that wealth is parked at the pockets of the 0.1%
Agreed
“ I’m as big a critics of our modern capital-industrial system as the next person”
Evidently
Does it? I’d imagine it just makes sense that the tech used for AI in art would be used for art.
I don’t see how it would be used for labor without a bunch of other steps.
And as also pointed out, there’s tech that, while not specifically “AI”, is used to replace labor.
as a luddite you should know that automation‘s goal never was to save us from unwanted labour. But of course this would have to be accomplished first, before your second assumption can ever come true.
I read an article (probably linked to from here) about how “Luddite” isn’t the insult many people think it is. Luddites weren’t dumb, or superstitious and needlessly afraid of technology.
The historical Luddites were knowledgeable regarding technology. They weren’t anti-technology in general, they simply didn’t trust the rich and powerful to use it in a way that genuinely benefited society as a whole. Unfortunately, capitalists did what capitalists always do - they used machines to churn out inferior goods and cut worker pay. That’s why Luddites destroyed/sabotaged machines.
After learning that, I started considering Luddite a compliment.
Cool! I‘d also see it as a compliment. That‘s why I was surprised that a fellow luddite would interpret it differently. Alas, it was just this little word that made us stumble. But yeah, the Luddites knew that machines weren‘t evil. But that they would be used to generate more profit and not to lessen their toil
Languages evolve overtime. It’s very much an insult these days.
Yeah I agree. That’s why I said it was their ostensive goal. Their actual goal has only ever been profit.
ah, now I get it. You meant ostensible goal
Edit: I also had to look it up )
Oh huh TIL. I also looked it up, and it seems like a real doozy of a word. I had no idea. Looks some some dictionaries say that the two words are interchangeable, whereas others distinguish between them, and in the latter case, I used the wrong one. Language is fun!
“‘Inflammable’ means ‘flammable’? What a country!”
Haha, what’s this from again?
It’s a classic, from way back when The Simpsons was good.
Thanks! Nice to reminisce.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The Simpsons
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You can still build a garden by hand even if it’s commercially done with machines. It will be the same with drawing, voice acting, etc.
The problem is and has always been capitalism and the rich that abuse of it, not automation.
Not if you’re too busy between your two jobs manually training the LLM models and supervising the supposedly autonomous cars to make rent.