Comment by Our_Benefactors
22 days ago
I can’t take this article seriously, and neither should you. Being anti AI/anti LLM is solidly in the Luddite camp; there’s really no more debates to be had. Every serious inquiry shows productivity gains by using ai.
It’s anyone’s prerogative to continue to advocate for the horse and buggy over the automobile, but most people won’t bother to take the discussion seriously.
>Being anti AI/anti LLM is solidly in the Luddite camp; there’s really no more debates to be had. Every serious inquiry shows productivity gains by using ai.
These two sentences appear to be at odds with one another.
The data showed llms are better. This put debate to rest. Now we are post-debate.
What data are you talking about? Why do you value it above the data showing the opposite?
3 replies →
give me one seriously peer reviewed study please with proper controls
i wait
10 replies →
"the data"
> Being anti AI/anti LLM is solidly in the Luddite camp; there’s really no more debates to be had. Every serious inquiry shows productivity gains by using ai.
"Guys this debate is so stupid. Every serious inquiry shows productivity gains when we take away all senses, jack workers into the matrix and feed them a steady diet of speed intravenously. This put debate to rest. Now we are post-debate"
Something can increase productivity and still not be good.
You mean like the study that found a 20% productivity drop instead of gain?
It didn't really show that if you break down the data, and its methodology was pretty bad
https://www.fightforthehuman.com/are-developers-slowed-down-...
The Luddites had some great ideas and were driven by a more sophisticated philosophy than people tend to give them credit for. I think their motivations are still applicable and worth considering today.
Then put me solidly in the Luddite camp. I think you should look into the history of the Luddites though. They were not against technology; they were against technology that destroyed jobs.
AI is about destroying working-class jobs so that corporations and the owning class can profit. It's not about writing code or summarizing articles. Those are just things workers can do with it. That's not what it's actually for. Its purpose is to reduce payroll costs for companies by replacing workers.
> They were not against technology; they were against technology that destroyed jobs.
They were not against technology; they were against technology that their destroyed jobs. If we had followed what they wanted, we'd still be in a semi pre industrial artisnal economy, and the worse off for it.
So you didn't read about them.
> In North West England, textile workers lacked these long-standing trade institutions and their letters composed an attempt to achieve recognition as a united body of tradespeople. As such, they were more likely to include petitions for governmental reforms, such as increased minimum wages and the cessation of child labor.
Sounds pretty modern doesn't it? unions, wages, no child-exploitation...
And the government response?
> Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites.
you're absolutely correct!