The 21st century Luddite movement fears new technology, like artificial intelligence, will replace jobs.

People oppose new technology, fearing it will cause mass unemployment, as predicted by Lawrence Summers and others.

The term Luddite originally referred to 19th century English workmen who destroyed machinery, but now describes people opposing technological change.

Andrew Luck prefers simpler devices like flip phones, disconnecting from constant technology.

The Luddite movement, originating in 18th century England, has evolved with new motivations, including concerns over technology's undemocratic benefits.

Corporations prioritizing profit over progress drive technological development, concentrating wealth and power.

The 21st century Luddite movement includes people who reject digital entertainment for physical engagement.

These individuals believe that technology should encourage contribution, which brings meaning and motivates innovation.

Experts like Yuval Harari argue that technology has made many people redundant by displacing jobs.

Fear of being left behind by smart technology is a common concern for those resistant to it.

The Luddite label describes people who oppose AI development, including notable figures like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking.

The original Luddites, skilled craftsmen, resisted mass production due to labor concerns.

The Luddite movement is driven by concerns about technology's impact on work and the economy, including automation and universal basic income.

Anxiety triggers resistance to new technology due to feelings of being overwhelmed by learning and adapting to it.

Loss of control causes resistance to change when new technology is imposed without input or consent.

Insecurities about competence lead to resistance to new technology.

Fear of more work causes resistance to new technology, as it may increase workload or create new challenges.

Uncertainty leads to resistance to change, as individuals may hesitate to embrace new technology due to a lack of understanding.

Past work defensiveness causes resistance to new technology, as it threatens existing skills and knowledge.

Cognitive bias influences technology adoption due to preconceived notions shaping perceptions.

Emotions can influence judgments about new technology, leading people to make decisions based on feelings rather than facts.

Childhood experiences shape individuals' attitudes and beliefs about technology, influencing its adoption.

Social groups influence technology adoption through the opinions and behaviors of those around them.

Media and social networks influence technology adoption by shaping individuals' perceptions.

Brain features influence technology adoption resistance by affecting people's ability to learn and adapt.

People often perceive contrary facts as personal attacks, leading to resistance to new technology.

Repeated arguments can be perceived as true due to repetition and exposure.

Confrontation hinders new information perception in technology adoption by making individuals resistant to new ideas.

A non-confrontational approach aids technology adoption by presenting information in a collaborative and supportive manner.

Some consumers resist new technology adoption due to feeling coerced into upgrades.

Less than 1% of Verizon's customers still use 3G, showing the rapid pace of technological change.

Planned obsolescence influences technology adoption due to concerns about its environmental and social impacts.

Concerns about health effects of new technology exist due to potential health risks.

Emotional attachment to old technology can hinder adoption due to loyalty or nostalgia.

Personal values influence people's attitudes and behaviors towards new technology.

Fear of loss of control exists with smart technology due to potential risks of relying on automated systems and artificial intelligence.

Latent attitudes influence EV adoption intention by shaping people's decisions through their underlying beliefs and values.

Marketing perceptions influence EV adoption by shaping individuals' views of electric vehicles.

EV performance impacts adoption decisions, influenced by factors like range, efficiency, and overall performance.

Policy perceptions influence EV adoption by shaping individuals' decisions through their attitudes and beliefs about government policies and incentives.

EV adoption is influenced by factors like charging infrastructure and access to charging stations.

On-road price influences EV choice due to cost and affordability factors.

Willingness to pay extra influences people's decisions to adopt electric vehicles.

Monthly household income impacts EV choice due to budget and affordability considerations.

Age influences people's decisions to adopt electric vehicles.

Pricing influences individuals' decisions between EVs and conventional vehicles, affecting their choice based on cost and affordability.

Psychological immaturity can increase resistance to new technologies, causing individuals to cling to familiar systems and habits.

Lack of independence hinders new tech adoption, as less self-sufficient people may be more resistant and reliant on others.

Fear of job loss fuels resistance to AI due to concerns about automation risks.

Lack of control over technology can cause fear and anxiety in people.

Risk of societal degradation fuels resistance to AI due to concerns over its potential risks and consequences.

Immature individuals rely on authorities for decisions, as they are less secure and need guidance and support.

Individuals up to 40 years old may struggle with new tech.

Separation from parents can impact one's ability to adopt technology due to its influence on their attitudes and behaviors.

People fear the unknown consequences of new technologies and their potential impact on society.

Resistance to AI is linked to emotional maturity, shaping attitudes and behaviors towards change and uncertainty.

Perceived usefulness influences technology adoption, shaping individuals' decisions based on the benefits and advantages of new technologies.

Perceived risk consequences affect refuelling infrastructure acceptance, shaping people's adoption decisions.

Technology acceptance correlates with infrastructure acceptance, influenced by access to supporting infrastructure.

Perceived risk likelihood does not impact acceptance of new technologies.

Acceptance of fuel cell vehicles is influenced by factors like perceived usefulness and perceived risk.

Cognitive acceptance influences people's decisions to adopt new technologies by shaping their attitudes and beliefs.

Public perceptions of hydrogen energy are shaped by media coverage and social norms.

Psychological connections exist among acceptance dimensions, influenced by factors like perceived usefulness, risk, and social norms.

People's acceptance of new technologies is influenced by factors like perceived usefulness and social norms.

The 21st century Luddite movement fears new technology, like artificial intelligence, will replace jobs.

Title:

Content: Many sci-fi movies have painted artificial intelligence (AI) to be an omen of humanity’s demise. The first cinematic appearance of AI was in a 1927 silent German film, “Metropolis.” Throughout the entire film, a humanlike robot had the sole intention of wreaking havoc throughout the city. Despite this initial negative depiction of AI, technology has been racing toward the development of advanced artificial intelligence. According to Forbes, “AI-focused companies raised $12 billion in 2017 alone.” In August of 2021, Elon Musk revealed that he has an aspiration to create a humanoid robot called the Tesla Bot to eliminate mundane tasks and to make the bots accessible to the public by next year. He went as far to say that the Tesla Bot could displace the labor force, rendering physical work a matter of choice. Twitter ran wild after hearing about Musk’s announcement, with many people drawing comparisons to “I, Robot,” “The Terminator” and other apocalyptic movies.

Humans have a tendency to be wary and fearful of new technology, as seen in the 19th-century Luddite movement when artisans destroyed textile machines to protect their own jobs. The fear of AI seems to be widespread, as people are unsure of what AI is capable of and the repercussions of implementing it. The reality is that AI is already implemented in multiple parts of our daily life — the introduction of the Tesla Bot is just a newer way. The threat of AI might not be the climactic, action-packed threat that we see in films. Instead, it could be a dependence on AI that threatens to lull us into complacency.

Elon Musk acknowledges that the creation of the Tesla Bot will have far-reaching impacts on the economy — an implication that is attached with all emerging AI technology. Currently, most AI can only complete the tasks they are programmed for, and since this doesn’t require true reasoning, they have earned the name of Narrow AI. The dream of AI is to transcend the limitations of Narrow AI and reach a state of autonomy where it can continuously adapt on its own with all the abilities of a human brain. This uncontrollable and irreversible state would be revered as AI “singularity.” Daron Acemoglu, an Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that “firms that increase their AI adoption by 1 percent reduce their hiring by approximately 1 percent.” As industries try to find more ways to implement AI technology, there will be more and more displacement of workers. Amazon’s implementation of AI into grocery stores demonstrates their ability to completely eradicate cashiers while creating a more efficient way to go grocery shopping.

Acemoglu writes, “Some economists think fears of automation and AI displacing workers are overblown. They argue that as work becomes more AI-automated, the resulting productivity gains will spearhead labor demand in other parts of the economy … even in the same firms doing AI-driven automation.” The problem is the creation of AI itself — the automation economy drives labor demands down without any hope of reviving it. Even further, software developers GitHub and OpenAI have recently unveiled an AI pair programmer named Copilot to help provide coding suggestions based on what the programmer prompts the system. Even though the software is “still a work in progress” according to TechTalks, it will continue to become more reliable and efficient as more people use the technology. The unveiling of this particular AI shows that even the jobs of programming AI are not secure. AI is able to infiltrate every industry, and if AI is able to achieve singularity, even careers such as being an author or an artist are at risk of being replaced.

Attempting to prevent the rapid implementation of AI is almost impossible at this point. Many countries in the world are racing against each other in an attempt for AI dominance, trying to cultivate an environment for these companies to grow and flourish. The reason countries are invested in the evolution of AI is because it is revered as a strategic technology that could help countries get a tactical advantage over other countries and help strengthen governance. China is a great example of this, as it invested heavily into the AI industry while simultaneously implementing it into their infrastructure. Following the release of China’s three-step program to become a world leader in AI by 2030, they have planned to create a “$2.1 billion AI-focused technology research park,” according to Forbes. We can already see China implementing AI into the military and smart cities — during the Hong Kong protests, for example, the government implemented AI surveillance to identify citizens and subsequently curb protests.

Due to the importance of AI to government entities and many other industries, AI has cemented itself as an important factor to the success of new emerging firms. Trying to eradicate AI currently would actually impede the advancement of society as a whole. Though AI does pose a lot of threats such as the displacement of workers, built-in programmer biases and implications of AI in our political and economic system, the ability of an AI outweighs the risks. Its pure speed in utilizing huge reserves of information and executing action could change the way we live. It is dependent on developers and users as a whole to protect in the manner of how AI is utilized, perhaps through legislation or creating open source AI that is accessible to everyone. Then we could all access even a simple version of an AI that would also help our personal life.

One of the methods Elon Musk proposed in combating the displacement of workers would be to introduce a universal basic income. With the introduction of a universal basic income, we could lessen the strife of structural unemployment and shift toward a different type of societal model — one that bases itself less on a capitalistic work life and more of an emphasis on the humanities and the arts. Perhaps by allowing people to have more free time and less worries about their financial security, we could spur a new renaissance. We could fear AI and allow it to control our lives, or we could act before it becomes too powerful, using AI to benefit us as a society.

Akshay Ma Kumar is a senior majoring in economics.

People oppose new technology, fearing it will cause mass unemployment, as predicted by Lawrence Summers and others.

Title:

Content: You will not miss us!
8,008 followers
Why robots will take your job, and what to do - panic or rejoice
Why robots will take away your profession.
Increasingly, you can hear about the challenges posed by automation and cybernization to existing professions today.
And we are talking not only about unmanned vehicles and chatbots replacing call center operators, but also about programs that can calculate bank loans and insurance rates, depriving analysts and, moreover, neural networks that claim to compete with highly qualified and creative employees.
Exemption from routine or danger of unemployment?
A cause for concern or long-awaited freedom?
History of the problem
Mechanisms of ancient times.
Competition has always existed – professions disappeared and arose, people fought for jobs with each other and with technology, philosophers and economists built forecasts and tried to predict the prospects and are still doing it.
For example, you can assess how much automation threatens your profession and how quickly robots will replace you by using Will Robots Take My Job.
Aristotle was the first to think about the possibility of transferring “work ” to machines.
In the first book of his Politics, he suggested that they could evolve to such an extent that the need for human labor would disappear.
For him, quite in line with the views of work at the time, as something distracting from participation in public life and personal development, this was an extremely optimistic forecast.
“Work ” in ancient Greece was considered to be the lot of the lower classes, and the mechanisms would only liberate slaves, considered nothing but“ machines of flesh and blood. ”
The reorientation of the economy to the export of wool led to the introduction of a policy of “enclosures ”.
The real competition of a sufficiently large mass of people technology for the first time was only more than a millennium and a half later in England.
At first, the reorientation of the economy to wool exports led to the introduction of a policy of “fencing ”, in which landlords expelled farmers from the fields in order to free the territory for sheep grazing, which led to the first massive surge of“ unemployment ” – albeit not in the current sense.
The then arising vagrancy and poverty contemporary of these events, the Chancellor of England and philosopher Thomas More described the famous "sheep ate people."
However, after a few decades it became clear that no – not eaten.
The former peasants were absorbed by the growing cities, where they found a new job in textile manufactures, processing the same wool obtained from shearing sheep.
This was the first example of how, by taking away one thing, “technology ” is able to offer something different.
But we must admit: the process of urbanization was painful, the work that replaced the cultivation of land turned out to be hard and dirty, the gap with the traditional way of life was very traumatic, and the population of England as a result of hunger and the fight against vagrancy, which was conducted, including the use of gallows, decreased, according to some estimates by 30% (to understand the scale - the Soviet Union during the Second World War lost "only" 15% of the population).
Workers in a textile factory, late 18th century.
The next episode of the confrontation between people and technology occurred a century later in the same field of light industry - the invention in 1785 by Edmund Cartwright of a mechanical loom increased labor productivity forty times.
Jobs that had just been lost were once again lost.
But again temporarily – after spinning machines, others appeared and all of them demanded new resources, and their extraction – new types of labor.
Manufactures were replaced by factories, and muscle strength by the power of steam obtained from coal.
Machine Destroyers
The Luddite movement.
This time, the changes that occurred were met with bayonets - there was a movement of Luddites.
Sabotage of work and direct action: attacks on factories and the destruction of machines caused a harsh reaction of the state, which sent troops to suppress the “army of Ned Ludd ”.
It is characteristic that no one at the top bothered to convey to the workers the idea that there will still be work for them, even if not the one to which they had time to get used.
The fact is that the “top ” themselves at that time did not think too much about how all this was arranged, and people were perceived as expendable material, while the inertia of consciousness of ordinary workers who had just recovered from the transition from the agrarian to the urban way of life was also very high.
The First Industrial Revolution at the beginning of the 18th century.
The theoretical basis for the interaction of technological innovations and the masses of labor began to be summed up only by economists and philosophers of the middle of the XIX century.
They were the first to suggest that the disappearance of certain types of work in the process of technological development entails the emergence of new ones, and “work ” as a whole is not something final, which may be“ not enough ”.
The First Industrial Revolution was in full swing and the optimism of its apologists only grew stronger over time.
By the end of the century, it seemed that progress would eliminate not only social problems and contradictions, but could also rid humanity of wars.
However, while some spoke of the "Luddite delusion", others spoke of the "enslavement of the masses" and the need to hand over to the "factory workers", predicting that as long as the instruments of production are in the hands of the big proprietors, their employees will remain disenfranchised, and the lack of social security will cause explosions of unemployment at any moment.
Second wave
The Second Industrial Revolution.
The word “unemployment ” came into being at that time.
The fact is that a peasant working in the fields or a craftsman who provides for the needs of himself and the small surrounding community could not face something like this - he himself formed his employment.
When the scheme of selling labor on a strict schedule became mass within the framework of fulfilling a strictly regulated set of duties, the challenge arose to lose such an opportunity.
The Second Industrial Revolution was on the way.
The basics of streaming production were laid at the end of the 19th century, and by the beginning of the 20th century, the combination of Ford ’ s marketing strategy (he invented that the car was not an attribute of the elites, but a mass need) and the conveyor he introduced led to new changes that went beyond factories and factories.
On January 18, 1886, the first car invented by Karl Benz was released.
It was the emergence of technology on the streets of cities that brought a new wave of competition.
Look at the photos of the streets of the beginning of the last century: here they are dammed with carts, among which a lonely clumsy car is trying to maneuver, but ten years later, the only horse frightened by the roar of engines and sobbing of klaxons is clutching to the sidewalks.
Here it will be important to note how unpredictable this jump became: “At the beginning of the 20th century, the French Academy warned about an environmental disaster, which inevitably should lead to the accumulation of horse manure associated with the development of horse-drawn transport in Paris, ” recalls, reasoning about the prediction of the future Stanislav Lem.
However, note: in those regions where human labor is cheaper, technology can not replace it, as we are shown, for example, rickshaws, until recently used their own muscle power and only with a sharp drop in the cost of small vehicles motorized.
A more modern example is “computer rickshaws ” – hundreds of thousands of low-skilled Chinese, hacked captchas all day, because their work costs less than the introduction of scripts.
Technological unemployment
The line of the American unemployed during the Great Depression.
In the 1930s, Maynard Keynes, who gave the world the theory of the “social state ”, from the attempts of which many economies have not recovered so far, introduced the term“ technological unemployment ” into mass circulation.
Since then, the debate about whether the introduction of new technological solutions and opportunities can create a long-term job crisis or whether everything is limited to repurposing, when obsolete professions are replaced by new ones, and it is enough for people to change or improve their skills.
Until the end of the last decade, most experts were inclined to believe that “technological unemployment ” is always a temporary phenomenon, leading to the renewal and improvement of the professionalism of workers.
Mechanical labor was replaced by physical labor, the operator - a profession more status and highly paid than the worker, the reduction of costs leads to the release of time - these are the main theses sounded then.
Pessimistic views remained largely the domain of marginals, such as Theodore Kaczynski, famous for his terrorist struggle against progress under the name of Unabomber and primitive philosophers.
Pessimism
The first full-fledged computer in the USSR BESM-1.
Cautious voices expressing doubts about the correctness of this approach sounded even then.
And if in one of his speeches in 1962, President Kennedy said that “if people are able to invent new machines that take away their jobs, even more so are able to invent new jobs, ” then two years later, a letter from scientists and activists concerned with the problem of technological unemployment, sent to his successor, Lyndon Johnson, stated that“ a revolution in cybernetics will create a separate nation of poor, unskilled unemployed. ”.
Theorists disputed the impossibility of long-term unemployment, as did Martin Ford in the book “Light in the Tunnel: Automation, Acceleration of Technology and the Economy of the Future ” or Marshall Brains in“ Robotic Nation ”.
Gasne-Peter Martin and Harald Schumann, in their Global Trap, describe a society in which the labor of twenty percent of the population is enough for the world economy to continue to develop.
There are those who see it as a threat and a danger, like Paul Krugmann in his article “Sympathy for the Luddites ” or Frey and Osborne in“ The Future of Work. ”
In addition, in practice, it turned out that technology is not so freeing up time – for example, representatives of professions requiring high qualifications, at least in the United States today work more than 30 years ago, and technologies that provide remote access to working tools allow them not to break away from professional tasks and in their “free time ”.
It is also important that new jobs, as it was noticed at the beginning of the XXI century, are created not so much by technology as by the change in the way of life that they entail.
So in the mid-2010s, nine out of ten working people are employed in professions that did not exist a century earlier, but only 5% of the jobs that appeared from 1993 to 2013 are in high-tech areas, such as IT or telecom.
However, the question is whether this does not mean that indirectly they still arise due to technologies that provide an opportunity for development for the service sector.
Is it bad?
A shot from the film "I, Robot" (2004).
Harvard economics professor Lawrence Summers, who previously served as U.S. Treasury Secretary, said in 2014 that he no longer believes that automation will always create new jobs and that it is not some hypothetical possibility in the future; it is something that is emerging now.
In his opinion, the changes will be very global and will lead to mass unemployment not only among low-skilled employees, but also for “blue ” and“ white ” collar workers, because “there are many reasons to think that the software revolution will be even more significant than the agrarian one. ”
The robot prepares food.
However, this is what allows us to look to the future with optimism.
Summers ’ s thought of the meaning of the digital revolution echoes the position of futurologist Alvin Toffler.
As early as 1970, in his book Future Shock, he wrote that by comparing the Digital Revolution with the Industrial Revolution, we downplay its significance and it would be more correct to draw a parallel with the exit of mankind from caves and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and cattle breeding.
Potentially, this means that humanity is on the verge of an unprecedented, unknown written history civilizational leap of colossal proportions.
And, due to the fact that the speed of changes in the world has increased many times and now, the fact that in the case of the end of the Stone Age, took millennia, is being carried out in front of one, a maximum of a couple or three generations, this breakthrough, of course, will be painful.
However, having reviewed the usual way of life, the attitude to it and their values, will not humanity be able to break through to the conditions of life, previously even unimaginable.
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991).
We are easily accustomed to such changes in “work ” as freelancing and remote work, quite calmly came to a repeated change of professions, instead of a continuous, decades-long“ career ” and even were able to include them in your life, saying that this is the way to find yourself.
So is it not time to begin to accustom ourselves to the idea that, as economic historian Robert Skidelsky said, “Sooner or later we will run out of work ”?
After all, freelancing and remote employment are about freedom, about leaving the “office slavery ” and searching for the way of life that is convenient for us.
Yes, to get used to the idea that the traditional “work ” is over and now we will have to independently invent what to occupy ourselves will not be easy.
It will require responsibility, but it is freedom.
Isn ’ t it time for us, joyfully exclaiming “Glory to the robots! ”, to go in search of our place in the new world?
Why robots will take away your profession.
The fact that it is not only about robots, but also about the “work ” itself and the possibility of life without it, about the risks associated with negative scenarios of confrontation between people and machines and the possibilities of overcoming them, we will talk in the next parts of the cycle.
source
If you liked this post, please share it with your friends:
And don't forget:
Subscribe to my Instagram
Link to the original source
Picture of the day
top

The term Luddite originally referred to 19th century English workmen who destroyed machinery, but now describes people opposing technological change.

Title:

Content: Andrew Luck Finally Upgrades His Flip Phone … To Another Flip Phone

Intro: Andrew Luck has made it clear that he’s not interested in joining the world of smartphones. He’s just fine with his flip phone, and he finally got an upgrade this week.

INDIANAPOLIS — Has Andrew Luck finally turned in his ancient flip phone for a smartphone?

No. No he has not.

But, he did get a new flip phone this week.

The Indianapolis Colts quarterback on Thursday shared on his Facebook account that his mobile carrier had hooked him up with a new phone.

In June, Luck became the recipient of the most lucrative contract in NFL history, and many wondered if the fifth-year Stanford product was going to splurge on the newest smartphone for himself.

"One, I like it. It's a comfort thing," Luck said of not giving up the flip phone lifestyle. "I think anybody can appreciate that, if you're used to that. … Two, I don't think I want to be connected 24/7, and this phone is maybe sort of a reminder that you don't have to be connected. And it's nice to get away. It's nice to turn your phone off."

Luck's phone at that time — and his new one, we assume — can send and receive text messages, and for all the newest crazes in apps and technology, he says he has an iPad.

"What else do you need?" Luck asked. "I'm not a Luddite."

Luddite | Ludd·ite | Noun: "One of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly :  one who is opposed to especially technological change." Thank you, Merriam Webster.

Nice word choice, Andrew. Looks like his "Andrew Luck Book Club" is paying huge dividends.

While many of us (including the author of this article) remain glued to their smartphones, Luck is obviously content with what's gotten him to this point in life.

Smartphone or flip phone — or rotary phone — he's back on the field and healthy for the Indianapolis Colts, and that's all that should matter to his fans and his organization.

This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Please use the Contact Us link in our site footer to report an issue.

Related Content

2023 Season Tickets On Sale Now!

Secure the best seats, benefits & more for next season! Be there live for exciting matchups against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and more opponents to be announced soon. Learn more today!

Advertising

Andrew Luck prefers simpler devices like flip phones, disconnecting from constant technology.

The Luddite movement, originating in 18th century England, has evolved with new motivations, including concerns over technology's undemocratic benefits.

Corporations prioritizing profit over progress drive technological development, concentrating wealth and power.

Title:

Content: Hey tech billionaires, if you want to talk about radical change, let’s abolish venture capitalism

 / Source: GuardianAus

The future that technology elites like to imagine looks remarkably similar to the one we’re in

‘Any meaningful, progressive – and dare I say, hopeful – view of the future of technology must be willing to engage with its politics, history and consequences.’‘Any meaningful, progressive – and dare I say, hopeful – view of the future of technology must be willing to engage with its politics, history and consequences.’Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress.

Andreessen lambasts academia for being “disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable – playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences”. I have never read a more apt description of Big Tech.

So why should we give this manifesto any time of day? As the co-founder of one of the world’s biggest venture capital firms, Andreessen holds significant power. And he’s far from alone in his thinking – the manifesto offers a glimpse into the belief systems of many tech billionaires. Echoes can be heard of Mark Zuckerberg’s infamous former motto:Tech elites like to cast themselves as radical revolutionaries. But we find ourselves in a relentless cycle of sameness. headtopics.com

Concealed within the rhetoric of tech progress is preservation of the status quo. The future that tech elites imagine looks remarkably similar to the one we’re in: unchecked power, consolidated wealth, low regulation and minimal consequences when technology proves to be harmful. If we want to talk about

It serves tech billionaires well to make it seem as though social progress is intrinsically linked to tech development. They cast themselves as our; here to save humanity provided they retain the power, capital and market dominance to do so. Anyone who dares get in the way is dismissed as backwards or ignorant. This mischaracterisation goes at least as far back as the early 1800s and the Luddite uprising. headtopics.com

Then as now, when elites misrepresent techno-scepticism as dangerous or backwards, they are trying to direct attention away from rational concerns about manifestations of power and profit.The brand of optimism wielded by prominent tech industry figures weaponises hope for a better future. It asks us to shy away from the political realities of technology as it stands in favour of a libertarian fantasy (or nightmare).

Australia Headlines

Read more:GuardianAus »

Terrified of spiders? Let me change your mindOur distaste for spiders is based on ideas that have taken hold in society and are reinforced the more they circulate. Read more ⮕

Terrified of spiders? Let me change your mindOur distaste for spiders is based on ideas that have taken hold in society and are reinforced the more they circulate. Read more ⮕

Terrified of spiders? Let me change your mindOur distaste for spiders is based on ideas that have taken hold in society and are reinforced the more they circulate. Read more ⮕

Navis Capital’s Device Tech rules off $400m debt dealStreet Talk understands the $400 million was underwritten by Commonwealth Bank and Westpac last week. Read more ⮕

‘Dumb white dogs’: Melbourne bar sparks outrage for ‘abolish Israel’ signAn inner Melbourne bar has gone into damage control after being condemned over a sign placed out the front which called for Israel to be abolished. Read more ⮕

Super Saturdays and ‘HIT’ clinics to slash surgery waitlist backlogA radical blueprint proposes several measures in a bid to cut the number of people waiting in pain for surgery. Read more ⮕

The 21st century Luddite movement includes people who reject digital entertainment for physical engagement.

Title:

Content: Blog post

We cannot buy tomorrow — using stories to understand technology change

By Mark P. McDonald | December 03, 2021 | 0 Comments

tech NO logyPersonal ObservationHuman AbilityFuture of High TechDigital Society

The dynamic and accelerating rate of change, disruption, societal concerns, etc can make it difficult to see what it all means, the direction we are heading in.  Speculative fiction is one of the ways that people try to make sense out of what can appear to be senseless.  Gartner instituted a special project called “Stories from Planet B“.  The goal was to use stories and other artifacts to help stakeholders envision preferred and plausible futures in a way that is transformative, inspiring and disrupting.

Here is my story, you can find the others at “Stories from Planet B” on Gartner.com

Enjoy

Mark

YOU CANNOT BUY TOMORROW

Tara sat down, rubbing her leg to work out a cramp she had picked up on the walk from her house. She had delayed this to the last minute. “Can’t turn ten ‘till you talk to the old men,” her brother reminded her.

Tara cleared her throat. “Question: What was it like at the start?“

Response: Project 2207, Darius Senna, aged 105, recalling the founding of Pantos.

The front of the room darkened. “Tara. The name means star,” came a man’s voice from the darkness.

“Dad says it’s also a lubricant that has gone bad, ‘Tar — ahh!’”  The room got even darker.

“We call ourselves Pantos. The fifth wave of Planet B colonists, B5, like the vitamin,” the man’s voice continued.

Darius Senna walked out of the darkness. He was wearing a blue collarless shirt rolled up at the sleeves, dark pants and brown boots. Tara noticed his rough hands, and his face, lined from UV rays. A bench appeared. He sat down.

“We were not the first. The first were the explorers. They discovered Planet B, determined it could support life, and summoned us to our new home. Then came ships, filled with those who could afford to leave Earth behind.”

Senna leaned back. Tara noticed the old style comms implant on his wrist. “Six centuries ago, the English sent ships carrying goldsmiths, jewelers, governors and soldiers to Jamestown. They sought to civilize their ‘new world.’ Likewise, the first ships to Planet B carried engineers bankers, officials — the cream of a curdled civilization.”

Looking out the window, Darius continued: “Those first ships were technological marvels. Gossamer solar sails, filled with technology and terraforming equipment. They landed in the northern hemisphere of Planet B. When their technology failed, they starved, just like the colonists at Jamestown.”

He paused and looked at Tara. “After three more waves, some of them are still around, eating from waste regenerators, asking their tech why it doesn’t work. We don’t see them much. We think about them even less.” Darius leaned forward, clasping his hands, just like Tara’s father did when making a point. “We Pantos understand — the physical world feeds the digital world. When the physical does not work, the digital does not matter.”

“Old Earth technology changed in the early 21st century. It turned inward. It became obsessed with experience, entertainment and consumption.” His face hardened. “Before then, technology had made people’s lives better. Then society went digital, and consumption mattered more.”

Darius unclasped his hands. “Data replaced reason. People focused on themselves. Technology meant looking down at a screen, not up at the world around them. People thought it was wonderful. Screens made them feel better.”

He leaned back. Tara noticed the scar down the inside of his left arm. No one had scars anymore, not since the invention of Dermaplast. Darius saw her staring and, almost under his breath, said: “With their narrow datasets, myopic algorithms and self-centered beliefs, they couldn’t see what was really coming. And they never did.”

“I had just turned twenty-seven,” Darius said. He paused, lost in a memory.

He resumed, “We Pantos are not Luddites. We are some of the finest innovators and engineers humanity has ever known. Old Earth technologies were advanced, but consumptive. They were great for solving little problems. Distributing products instantaneously, keeping their users’ attention, showing each other how successful they were.”

“But when the big problems came, technology could not handle it. The heat, the drought, the pandemics, the inequalities, the authoritarian states. This was the world as it really was, not how it appeared online. Their technologies spent what resources they had, but could not create more. When their inherited wealth dried up, it all fell apart.”

“You know why we Pantos tell each other, ‘You can’t buy …”

“… Tomorrow,” Tara finished. She heard that at least ten times a month.

“Right,” Darius replied. “We say that when it’s time to get to work.”

“The ‘northerners’ brought Earth’s ethos of control and exploitation. Digital entertainment, not physical engagement. They binged on culture as they starved and froze to death. If you go up north you can see the graves of trillionaires, and screens looping videos demonstrating their importance.” Darius went silent.

Tara waited, unsure of what to do next. “If we are not the first, then when did we get here?”

Darius looked Tara directly in the face. “We came in the last wave. We came on outdated ships driven by ions. The ships were cannibalized once we landed on the southern hemisphere, far from the first four failures.”

He smiled, “The first waves came to Planet B in space limos. Pantos came in space beaters.”

“Pantos went to work. Our technology fits our hands, not our eyes. We built our homes, rather than having them printed. Building them ourselves proved we were here to stay. Doing things yourself teaches you the true costs and benefits of your actions.”

He paused for a moment, and said: “Tara, remember to feed the Briax when you get home.”

She knew. Doing builds ownership and responsibility; consuming builds nothing but your waistline.

Darius resumed: “Technology is part of our agency. Planet B sustains life, but we are building a world to ensure our minds stay broad; we think before we act. We make mistakes, like we did at Junction.”

He rubbed the inside of his left arm.

“Failure is acceptable when we learn from it. Unacceptable when it is a cost of doing business, or called an externality.”

“We stay strong, acknowledging challenges and celebrating progress. Technology encourages contribution, not consumption. Contribution brings meaning. Meaning motivates innovation and improvement. If it does not work for all of us, then it does not work well enough for any of us. We have much work to do. You know…”

“You can’t buy tomorrow,” Tara repeated, reflexively.

The room brightened. Senna was gone, as was the bench. A woman’s voice spoke up. “Congratulations, Tara. Welcome to your next decade.”

Tara stood up. As she was leaving, she thought she heard the woman say: “Another turning ten. A blessing.”

“Yes,” came Senna’s reply. “Old enough to understand, and young enough to care.”

These individuals believe that technology should encourage contribution, which brings meaning and motivates innovation.

Experts like Yuval Harari argue that technology has made many people redundant by displacing jobs.

Title:

Content: WEF Adviser Yuval Harari: ‘We Just Don’t Need the Vast Majority of the Population’ in Today’s World

Breitbart – by Robert Kraychik

Yuval Noah Harari, historian, futurist, and World Economic Forum (WEF) adviser, said, “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population” in the early 21st century given modern technologies’ rendering human labor economically and militarily “redundant.”

Harari’s remarks were made in an interview with Chris Anderson, the head of TED, published on Tuesday. He assessed widespread contemporary disillusionment among “common people” as being rooted in a fear of being “left behind” in a future run by “smart people.” Such fears are justified, he added, given his projection that emerging technologies will displace economic needs to many categories of existing work:

A lot of people sense that they are being left behind and left out of the story, even if their material conditions are still relatively good. In the 20th century, what was common to all the stories — the liberal, the fascist, the communist — is that the big heroes of the story were the common people, not necessarily all people, but if you lived, say, in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, life was very grim, but when you looked at the propaganda posters on the walls that depicted the glorious future, you were there. You looked at the posters which showed steel workers and farmers in heroic poses, and it was obvious that this is the future.

Now, when people look at the posters on the walls, or listen to TED talks, they hear a lot of these these big ideas and big words about machine learning and genetic engineering and blockchain and globalization, and they are not there. They are no longer part of the story of the future, and I think that — again, this is a hypothesis — if I try to understand and to connect to the deep resentment of people, in many places around the world, part of what might be going there is people realize — and they’re correct in thinking that — that, ‘The future doesn’t need me. You have all these smart people in California and in New York and in Beijing, and they are planning this amazing future with artificial intelligence and bio-engineering and in global connectivity and whatnot, and they don’t need me. Maybe if they are nice, they will throw some crumbs my way like universal basic income,’ but it’s much worse psychologically to feel that you are useless than to feel that you are exploited.

Harari contrasted the 20th century with the 21st while forecasting what he said is the current century’s and future economies progressively diminishing need for human beings. He said:

If you go back to the middle of the 20th century — and it doesn’t matter if you’re in the United States with Roosevelt, or if you’re in Germany with Hitler, or even in the USSR with Stalin — and you think about building the future, then your building materials are those millions of people who are working hard in the factories, in the farms, the soldiers. You need them. You don’t have any kind of future without them.

“Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population,” he concluded, “because because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering, Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.”

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/08/10/wef-adviser-yuval-harari-we-just-dont-need-the-vast-majority-of-the-population-in-todays-world/

Fear of being left behind by smart technology is a common concern for those resistant to it.

The Luddite label describes people who oppose AI development, including notable figures like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking.

Title:

Content: The new is the old well forgotten.
Where in the Network there was a fashionable insult to the opponents of AI
In the Internet discourse, deep in the study of sarcastic comments of anonymous persons, you can find the term "Luddite".
This label is often referred to as people who dare to express the slightest inclination to inhibit the constant development of artificial intelligence (AI).
Related video
Interestingly, such prominent figures as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have been awarded the Luddite Award, which is recognition of their cautionary position regarding the potential dangers associated with artificial intelligence.
During the ceremony, Robert D. Atkinson, the organizer of the award, noted: “Unfortunately, luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to the feverish refraction of hands about the impending apocalypse of artificial intelligence, ” writes IFLScience.
In Focus.Technology appeared its own Telegram-channel.
Subscribe not to miss the latest and exciting news from the world of science!
Atkinson also explained: "Do we consider any of them personally Luddites?
No, of course not.
They are pioneers of science and technology.
But they and others have done a disservice to the public — and undoubtedly have helped and comforted the increasingly common neo-Luddist impulse in modern society — by demonizing AI in the popular imagination.
But how did the term come about?
Its roots can be traced back to the early 1800s in England.
Before the industrial revolution, skilled craftsmen who knew a lot about textile production made clothes using their own machines and specialized tools.
However, a situation arose when new technologies and methods of mass production appeared, as a result of which artisans were unable to compete.
The result was a movement whose purpose was the destruction of the textile industry and the destruction of new machines.
Although there is some truth to this story, it does not reflect the whole essence of the Luddite movement.
Their actions were not driven solely by a reaction to new technologies; rather, they were a response to the profound transformations taking place in their professional activities.
While it is true that they often attacked a knitting machine known as a stocking frame, as well as other mechanized fixtures, their main concern was the labor practices associated with these machines.
Kevin Binfield, editor of the Luddite and Compassionate Works, explained their motives: "They simply wanted machines to produce high-quality goods, and that these machines employed workers who had been trained and received fair wages.
It was their only concern. ”
The nickname "Luddites" comes from the nickname "Ned Ludd", an apocryphal figure who allegedly sabotaged a textile factory in 1779, although historical evidence suggests that this man was most likely a fictional one.
In a 2007 paper, researcher David Linton explained: “Some say that a young man, possibly with cognitive impairment, named Ned Ludd once misunderstood an order and accidentally broke his frame machine.
Others argue that this was done deliberately, in a fit of anger.
Whatever the motive, it seems to have become a joke phrase that whenever the machine breaks, for whatever reason, you can say something like, "Ludd must have been here."
From this construction, it is a short step to the ironic application of the name Ludd to vandalism for political purposes. "
Between 1811 and 1816, the Luddite movement held sporadic and somewhat unorganized protests, characterized by the destruction of cars and the burning of factories.
In response, the mill owners resorted to extreme measures, using deadly force against the Luddites.
In April 1812, there was a grim turning point in Huddersfield, where at least four people died at the hands of the mill owners.
In retaliation, the Luddites killed the owner of the mill, William Horsfall, who boldly declared his intention to "smear himself with Luddite blood to the saddles."
Horsfall was shot while sitting on his horse.
Faced with these uprisings, the government immediately sent thousands of soldiers to quell the protests.
Moreover, they adopted a law according to which the breakdown of cars was subject to the death penalty or sending to colonies.
Subsequently, the movement dissipated, but the stable expression "Luddite" could not accurately convey the ideals and goals of the Luddites.
Previously, Focus wrote about the first IPSO in the history of mankind.
It turns out that it was invented in Babylon and it concerns the Flood.

The original Luddites, skilled craftsmen, resisted mass production due to labor concerns.

The Luddite movement is driven by concerns about technology's impact on work and the economy, including automation and universal basic income.

Anxiety triggers resistance to new technology due to feelings of being overwhelmed by learning and adapting to it.

Title:

Content: BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Right Way To Evaluate A Technology Solution For Your Organization

Founder and CEO at Ludi, Inc., a healthcare technology company making it easy for hospitals to pay physicians.

Selecting a new technology for your company can be daunting. Organizations usually begin this process with a desire to either streamline or solve specific pain points. Regardless of your specific needs, implementing new technology will involve change. For your organization as an entity, change can be great. Change can reduce inefficiencies and errors, as well as usher in new opportunities. But for the people who work for your organization, change can trigger anxiety and ultimately resistance to the new technology. Here are six things to keep in mind when evaluating new technology:

1. Identify your problem. It sounds simple, but many organizations jump straight to the solutions they find appealing. If you focus on the true problem you’re trying to solve, you will stay goal-oriented while searching for a vendor.

2. Keep an open mind. You may have seen a solution you find appealing, but remember that you don’t know what you don’t know. The technology partner you choose should be an expert in the field and may offer you products that you didn’t even know existed. Stay open to new ideas and solutions. One of the things I’ve noticed is prospective clients saying, “We can’t buy this product unless it handles this exact case we’re trying to solve for.” That’s not always the most effective approach because it doesn’t take all the variables into consideration. For example, my company works with hospitals to streamline complex physician payment structures. The hospital may have had the doctor recording their time one way because they were using a paper system and approvals needed to be checked in a certain manner for that doctor to get paid. Once you eliminate paper, though, in that particular scenario, everything is up for discussion – not just the way doctors record their time, but the entire physician payment process at the hospital. Rigidity will not benefit you when evaluating new technology.

3. Get your people on the same page. Meet with department heads to pull together all the pain points that need to be solved. You must be comprehensive during your internal review because needs come out differently across different departments. You may not be able to solve everyone’s problem with the new technology, but it’s important to align your team before you bring in a vendor. Then prioritize your needs. Once your departments agree on the priorities, be clear with your team on who is making the final decision. Departmental input is important, but knowing who the purchaser is within your organization is equally important. Remember: Don’t lose sight of why you're buying this technology. Keep the ultimate purpose in mind.

4. Consider internal change management. Change is difficult for many of us, so it’s important to stop and consider the people who will be affected by this change. Resistance to change can originate from any of the following: loss of control, insecurities about competence, feeling defensive about past work, concern about more work and general uncertainty. Be proactive in preparing your staff for a change, because all of these responses tend to have a ripple effect in corporate cultures.

5. Focus on the future. If you’ve ever bought a house, you know that there are things you didn’t know you needed until you lived with your investment for a few years. Technology is no different. You may have a list of goals for your business, but there is no telling what you’ll need 10 years from now. The best technology partner will be flexible enough to support your organization as it grows. How can you find a partner with this type of future-focused outlook? See point number two.

6. Listen and be patient. The people delivering technology solutions in the market are experts and can offer you insights into the industry. I suggest finding a solution that can handle 90% of what you need out of the box. Work with your solution provider and try their out-of-the-box solutions for 90 days before you decide what you need next. Make sure the product you choose is flexible enough to grow with your business, but resist over-customizing the product because that can back you into a corner.

Technology solutions truly can help you streamline and standardize your business. Time spent organizing what problem you are trying to solve will make the search much more efficient. While there may not be a solution out there that does everything you hope to accomplish, keep an open mind and you'll find a solution that's right for your specific needs.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website

Loss of control causes resistance to change when new technology is imposed without input or consent.

Insecurities about competence lead to resistance to new technology.

Fear of more work causes resistance to new technology, as it may increase workload or create new challenges.

Uncertainty leads to resistance to change, as individuals may hesitate to embrace new technology due to a lack of understanding.

Past work defensiveness causes resistance to new technology, as it threatens existing skills and knowledge.

Cognitive bias influences technology adoption due to preconceived notions shaping perceptions.

Title:

Content: Three factors will help win the dispute: scientists told why it is so difficult for us to change our minds
Neurophysicists have discovered three factors worth considering in order to change one ’ s or someone else ’ s opinion.
Everyone knows the situation when an ordinary, seemingly conversation can lead to a large-scale scandal, where each of the participants in the discussion will adhere to his point of view and flatly refuse to accept new facts, even if they are true and proven.
Scientists have come to the conclusion that new data, alas, often are not able to affect the judgments of people, writes Inverse.
Previously, neurophysiological studies and cognitive psychology have shown that politics is the most vulnerable topic.
In this topic, people are most prone to make judgments on emotions (fear, anger, contempt), while facts fade into the background.
It is known that the worldview of a person begins to form in childhood, when we socialize in a certain cultural context.
After their adjustments are made by the social groups that we support, the media and social networks that we read, and even the features of our brain.
All of this in total affects how we treat ourselves and interact with the rest of the world.
The researchers concluded that most people perceive facts contrary to their worldview as an attack on their personality.
And later they are able to even toughen their position, in attempts to defend their own opinion.
Alas, only in an ideal world are people rational and faced with new evidence that contradicts their opinion, are able to evaluate new data and change their own views.
In the real world, it is not so.
In the course of research, neuroscientists from the University of Connecticut have identified several factors that make us resist changing our own opinions.
The first factor that scientists call is cognitive bias, which is also called “persuasion of perseverance. ”
Psychologists note that anyone can become a victim of cognitive bias, inability to perceive evidence that threatens formed beliefs.
The second repulsive factor is the insistence on presenting information that suggests that our beliefs are wrong.
Whether it ’ s social media, news or personal conversations – we feel threatened and go into a deaf defense.
A third, no less important factor, scientists consider the repetition of arguments.
It is proved that repeated statements are perceived by us as more true, regardless of how true or false they are.
As a result of the study, scientists formulated several tips that will help to “win ” the dispute and force the interlocutor to change his opinion, or at least think about the fact that it is not true.
First, do not go into confrontation - if the interlocutor does not feel threatened, this will allow him to better perceive new information.
Secondly, state the facts without turning to personality - do not tell the interlocutor that he is misinformed or ignorant.
Third, try to ask your opponent a few questions that will make him doubt what he believes in.
By the way, these tips are not an ideal formula and there is no guarantee that they will help win the dispute, but the chances of success will increase.
We will remind, earlier Focus wrote about 30 rules of disputes on Facebook, adhering to which, you can prove your case.

Emotions can influence judgments about new technology, leading people to make decisions based on feelings rather than facts.

Childhood experiences shape individuals' attitudes and beliefs about technology, influencing its adoption.

Social groups influence technology adoption through the opinions and behaviors of those around them.

Media and social networks influence technology adoption by shaping individuals' perceptions.

Brain features influence technology adoption resistance by affecting people's ability to learn and adapt.

People often perceive contrary facts as personal attacks, leading to resistance to new technology.

Repeated arguments can be perceived as true due to repetition and exposure.

Confrontation hinders new information perception in technology adoption by making individuals resistant to new ideas.

A non-confrontational approach aids technology adoption by presenting information in a collaborative and supportive manner.

Some consumers resist new technology adoption due to feeling coerced into upgrades.

Title:

Content: When it comes to new technology, some consumers can’t wait. But I’m, “What now?” While I’d never exchange my pocket calculator for an abacus, I don’t want the latest gadget.

Innovation pulls us along at rapid speed and it’s exhausting. I protest where possible. I resent technology being forced down my throat, forced to order checks online when the 800 number I misplaced works fine. You must wonder why I still use checks.

Sommer got a letter from Verizon informing her that December 31 they will no longer support 3G devices. I’m on my daughter’s phone plan and asked, “Are they talking about me?” She said, “Of course. It’s time to give up your flip phone.”

Charlton Heston’s declaration about guns popped into my head, and I thought, “I’ll give up my flip phone when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

Everyone doesn’t welcome 5G. People argue that the smaller wavelengths used in each new generation of mobile phone infrastructure have never been tested, and therefore we are guinea pigs for this technological experiment.

Verizon stopped activating 3G devices in 2018, preparing for an original target shutdown date at the end of 2019. They extended that timeline to the end of 2020, then to the end of 2022. Mike Haberman, VP of Network Engineering attributed the delays to efforts to minimize disruptions to customers as they migrated to “newer and more advanced technologies.” I don’t want to migrate.

Verizon has120.9 million wireless subscribers, and less than 1% of its customers still access its 3G network. That includes me, so I’m one in a million!

Entering the Verizon store on HWY 27 last week, I knew exactly what I wanted. There would be no up-selling me. Clerks couldn’t appeal to my ego, because I don’t have to keep up with the Jones’ phone.

When I wanted to buy a new Jeep, I went to the showroom and felt like my wallet was open. The best case scenario was not being taken advantage of too much. The salesman did his schtick, I made my choice and he disappeared into a back room to talk to “someone.” He re-appeared and told me that with my credit, I can afford a much nicer car. I wanted a Jeep and said I’d find a dealer to sell me one.

My flip phone does what I need a phone to do—send and receive calls. And it doesn’t break when I drop it. My grandchildren try to convince me to join their addiction to pricey, fragile devices, but it’s futile. I’m okay sitting on the bottom rung of the technology ladder, not spending band width mastering new computer functions.

On principle, I won’t buy an iPhone, which makes me a conscientious objector. Reports about working conditions in factories that produce Apple products reinforce my bias against shiny new objects. Plus, Apple admitted they slow down smart phone performance on purpose to protect the batteries in older phones, which translates as, “Time to upgrade your phone.” Planned obsolescence is here to stay.

A friend gave me a subscription to The New Yorker. In short order, I was addicted their humor and wry cartoons and reading about culture in the Big Apple. A few months ago, cartoons depicted computer functions the artist wished he had in real life. I ran with the idea and imagined practical uses of sci-fi technology.

Every year on my birthday, I’ll hit num lock and stay forever 21. No, 40 is better. It will be easy to control unruly children with the ctrl button. If I run afoul of the law and end up in court, the delete button erases the crime. If the worse happens and I’m convicted and jailed, I’ll push escape.

If I botch a project and have to do it over, I’ll enter backspace. When I get bored with my job, I’ll hit shift and find a new career. Relationship problems are no problem with the pause button. If things still don’t work out, I’ll avoid a messy breakup by pressing end.

My parody looms closer than we know.

Smart technology can make decisions without human intervention. The technology employs machine learning and big data analysis to perform functions that have traditionally been done by humans. Robots might require more than the four laws they abide by. I don’t even want to know everything that AI (artificial intelligence) can do—that information might make me paranoid about my laptop.

I love my new $80 slate grey flip phone! Due to a promotion, it was free. I paid just $43.05 for the “upgrade” and activation.

Trending Videos

Less than 1% of Verizon's customers still use 3G, showing the rapid pace of technological change.

Planned obsolescence influences technology adoption due to concerns about its environmental and social impacts.

Concerns about health effects of new technology exist due to potential health risks.

Emotional attachment to old technology can hinder adoption due to loyalty or nostalgia.

Personal values influence people's attitudes and behaviors towards new technology.

Fear of loss of control exists with smart technology due to potential risks of relying on automated systems and artificial intelligence.

Latent attitudes influence EV adoption intention by shaping people's decisions through their underlying beliefs and values.

Title:

Content: SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Krishnan VV, Sreekumar M. Transp. Policy 2023; 142: 162-172.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.08.014

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Electric Vehicles (EVs) are considered the best alternative vehicular technology having the potential to cater climatic change and energy security issues of the nations. Despite various promotional policy measures, the penetration of EVs is also observed very low, especially in the developing economies in the Indian subcontinent. This demands a comprehensive analysis of individuals' EV adoption characteristics and the review of recent literature indicated that most of the research on EV adoption solely focuses on either the psychological aspects leading to its purchase, ignoring the available alternatives or on the conventional choice modelling techniques which do not explicitly consider the psychological motivation to choose the innovative technology. Therefore, this study integrates both behaviour modelling and conventional choice modelling in order to unfold the important determinants of EV adoption in developing economies. This study was conducted in India and the results of Hybrid Choice Modelling (HCM) highlighted that latent attitudes such as marketing perceptions, EV performance, policy perceptions, and EV usage constraints are significant factors influencing the EV adoption intention of individuals. In addition, the study also revealed that on-road price, EV adoption intention, willingness to pay extra for EVs, monthly household income, and age are also important predictors for choice between EVs and conventional vehicles. The study also pinpoints that pricing the electric SUV cars below INR 17 lakhs would make people consider choosing it over the conventional one.

Language: en

Keywords

Behaviour modelling; Developing countries; Electric vehicles; Hybrid choice model; Policy aspects; Structural equation modelling

NEW SEARCH

All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print

Marketing perceptions influence EV adoption by shaping individuals' views of electric vehicles.

EV performance impacts adoption decisions, influenced by factors like range, efficiency, and overall performance.

Policy perceptions influence EV adoption by shaping individuals' decisions through their attitudes and beliefs about government policies and incentives.

EV adoption is influenced by factors like charging infrastructure and access to charging stations.

On-road price influences EV choice due to cost and affordability factors.

Willingness to pay extra influences people's decisions to adopt electric vehicles.

Monthly household income impacts EV choice due to budget and affordability considerations.

Age influences people's decisions to adopt electric vehicles.

Pricing influences individuals' decisions between EVs and conventional vehicles, affecting their choice based on cost and affordability.

Psychological immaturity can increase resistance to new technologies, causing individuals to cling to familiar systems and habits.

Title:

Content: The main
Traveling In Place
Map of events
View map
Psychologist Sulim told about the danger of AI for humans
Society
Photo by Pixabay
With the development of technologies such as ChatGPT, some people may have an atrophied ability to make independent decisions.
This opinion was expressed by the candidate of psychological sciences Sofia Sulim.
She noted that such a problem can arise in people who are psychologically immature: they have not been separated from their parents, they are waiting for ready-made solutions, are in search of authorities.
— It will be, rather, about such people who are not yet mature enough — such are, unfortunately, the majority.
We can say that this is a certain age range mainly up to 40 years, up to 30 so accurately, ” she said in a comment to RIAMO.
The psychologist added that there are people who have not undergone separation after 40 years.
In the survey, residents of Russia spoke about their fears associated with the development of AI.
Most of the fears are related to the loss of work in the event that the capabilities of AI will allow you to replace a person.
Also, the reasons for fear were the lack of control over technology and the risk of degradation of society, reports FAN.
In turn, the Chairman of the Board of the Digital Economy Development Fund, German Klimenko, spoke about the benefits of introducing AI in various spheres of life.
Podcasts

Lack of independence hinders new tech adoption, as less self-sufficient people may be more resistant and reliant on others.

Fear of job loss fuels resistance to AI due to concerns about automation risks.

Lack of control over technology can cause fear and anxiety in people.

Risk of societal degradation fuels resistance to AI due to concerns over its potential risks and consequences.

Immature individuals rely on authorities for decisions, as they are less secure and need guidance and support.

Individuals up to 40 years old may struggle with new tech.

Separation from parents can impact one's ability to adopt technology due to its influence on their attitudes and behaviors.

People fear the unknown consequences of new technologies and their potential impact on society.

Resistance to AI is linked to emotional maturity, shaping attitudes and behaviors towards change and uncertainty.

Perceived usefulness influences technology adoption, shaping individuals' decisions based on the benefits and advantages of new technologies.

Title:

Content: Research Alert

Abstract

Newswise — As green hydrogen plays an increasingly pivotal role in shaping sustainable economies and society, understanding public acceptance of hydrogen becomes imperative for fostering social support towards hydrogen energy transitions. This study employs a survey-based structural equation modelling method to analyse public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen technology, fuel cell vehicles, and refuelling infrastructure based on technology acceptance theory. The results highlight the positive impact of the perceived usefulness of hydrogen energy and refuelling stations on individual acceptance levels. A notable discovery reveals that perceived risk consequences significantly influence individuals’ acceptance of nearby refuelling infrastructure, whereas perceived risk likelihood does not. Moreover, this study establishes psychological connections among diverse dimensions of hydrogen acceptance: technology acceptance is found to correlate positively with acceptance of refuelling infrastructure, indicating a pathway for cultivating public acceptance from cognitive to practical levels. The acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles exhibits mediating effects on this pathway, signifying mutual benefits for stakeholders in promoting hydrogen mobility and establishing refuelling infrastructure.

Journal Link: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

Perceived risk consequences affect refuelling infrastructure acceptance, shaping people's adoption decisions.

Technology acceptance correlates with infrastructure acceptance, influenced by access to supporting infrastructure.

Perceived risk likelihood does not impact acceptance of new technologies.

Acceptance of fuel cell vehicles is influenced by factors like perceived usefulness and perceived risk.

Cognitive acceptance influences people's decisions to adopt new technologies by shaping their attitudes and beliefs.

Public perceptions of hydrogen energy are shaped by media coverage and social norms.

Psychological connections exist among acceptance dimensions, influenced by factors like perceived usefulness, risk, and social norms.

People's acceptance of new technologies is influenced by factors like perceived usefulness and social norms.

Title:

Content: Research Alert

Abstract

Newswise — As green hydrogen plays an increasingly pivotal role in shaping sustainable economies and society, understanding public acceptance of hydrogen becomes imperative for fostering social support towards hydrogen energy transitions. This study employs a survey-based structural equation modelling method to analyse public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen technology, fuel cell vehicles, and refuelling infrastructure based on technology acceptance theory. The results highlight the positive impact of the perceived usefulness of hydrogen energy and refuelling stations on individual acceptance levels. A notable discovery reveals that perceived risk consequences significantly influence individuals’ acceptance of nearby refuelling infrastructure, whereas perceived risk likelihood does not. Moreover, this study establishes psychological connections among diverse dimensions of hydrogen acceptance: technology acceptance is found to correlate positively with acceptance of refuelling infrastructure, indicating a pathway for cultivating public acceptance from cognitive to practical levels. The acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles exhibits mediating effects on this pathway, signifying mutual benefits for stakeholders in promoting hydrogen mobility and establishing refuelling infrastructure.

Journal Link: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews