The 21st century Luddite movement opposes the great reset, new world order, agenda 2030, and genocidal tactics.

The movement seeks freedom from tyranny and resists manipulation by mainstream media and a malicious minority.

Some individuals identify as Luddites due to opposing technological change, while others reject certain technologies without adopting the label.

The term Luddite originated from 19th century English workmen who attacked machines to protest poor working conditions and unfair labor practices.

The modern Luddite movement cautions against AI development, with individuals like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates receiving a Luddite Award for their warnings.

The Luddite movement resists technology's harmful effects on the planet and the working class.

Luddite ideologies argue that technology threatens individual freedom.

The Luddite movement is concerned that automation and artificial intelligence will displace many jobs, making human labor redundant.

Yuval Harari states that modern technology has made most people redundant and emerging technologies will displace many jobs.

Resistance to change can stem from feelings of lost control or insecurity about competence, leading to employee anxiety.

Cognitive bias and social groups influence resistance to change.

People resist technological changes, despite their benefits, which transform societies.

Smartphones and artificial intelligence have significantly impacted human interaction and daily life.

300 million jobs globally are threatened by the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.

Investing in education and training is essential for workers to remain relevant in an automated workforce.

The World Economic Forum predicts a loss of 83 million jobs and a gain of 69 million new ones by 2027.

40% of global employment is at risk of AI disruption, impacting older workers more, and prior education affects adaptability to AI.

AI exacerbates inequality and puts every job at risk of disruption.

The 21st century Luddite movement opposes the great reset, new world order, agenda 2030, and genocidal tactics.

Title:

Content: This is what’s really happening vs what Justin Trudeau is saying!

The people of Canada are rising up against the tyrants.

The convoys are currently happening and organizing on a worldwide scale!

The time is now for everyone everywhere to support this movement of freedom for the future of the children and all of humanity.

We reject the great reset, the new world order, agenda 2030, and every genocidal tactic being implemented by the powers that be.

This has nothing to do with race, politics, vaccination status, or anything else divisive.

We all stand together for freedom united as one human race against the real “fringe minority“ (as Trudeau puts it) who are evil intentioned people.

In reality we are the majority!

There are millions (or billions) of us!

There is only a handful of them.

We refuse to allow the mainstream media to manipulate minds.

The truth will be told and displayed to the masses so people can make their own informed decisions.

The bottom line is the luciferians want to merge man with machine and make everyone a slave to this corrupt system.

Be on the right side of history and #JustSayNo!

Donate to the convoys on GiveSendGo.

Boycott GoFundMe.

Support the convoys and be a part of the revolution!

If you want to know where the truth is, look at telegram groups, bitchute, rumble, minds, wimkin, mewe, etc.

All uncensored platforms!

I get all of my videos off of telegram!

Seek the truth.

The movement seeks freedom from tyranny and resists manipulation by mainstream media and a malicious minority.

Some individuals identify as Luddites due to opposing technological change, while others reject certain technologies without adopting the label.

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

The term Luddite originated from 19th century English workmen who attacked machines to protest poor working conditions and unfair labor practices.

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 modern Luddite movement cautions against AI development, with individuals like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates receiving a Luddite Award for their warnings.

The Luddite movement resists technology's harmful effects on the planet and the working class.

Title:

Content: Artificial Intelligence and the Curse of the Machine Gods

Image by Gertrūda Valasevičiūtė.

Sometime back in 2008 I was having a conversation with an FBI agent. This is not something I would normally care to do, but in this case it was a family member—my half-brother, who is fourteen years older than me. We didn’t grow up together and have never particularly liked each other, and his wife and I share an intense mutual loathing, but at the time I was making an effort to be more present in the lives of their two young daughters, my nieces.

We were sitting in the living room of their home in Simi Valley, where cops move so they don’t have to live in L.A. with real people. The tedious babble of a televised football game was droning in the background. Following a thread of conversation I’ve long since forgotten, we somehow got onto to the topic of theft and morality. My brother said to me—and this is an exact quote—Are you one of those people who thinks it’s wrong to steal from a mom & pop store, but it’s okay to steal from Wal-Mart because it’s a big corporation?

Sensing my time to shine, I replied as follows: in order for me to believe that it would be “stealing” to take something from Wal-Mart without paying for it, I would first have to believe that Wal-Mart is capable of owning something. I don’t.

He was immediately confused. I continued.

In my view, you must have consciousness and will in order to own something. Wal-Mart has neither of those things; it is a construct. It may have stores and employees, managers and board members, but essentially it’s a legal fiction—a synthetic entity. Wal-Mart really only exists on paper, and it’s only because of consensus social agreement—and fear of law enforcement—that it can be said to have any claim at all to its warehouses of tacky furniture and sweatshop clothing.

The “synthetic entity” part really got him; he froze like an old computer. I could almost hear the cogs of his mind grinding as he tried to process an idea that was completely alien to his worldview.

Thanks to certain rulings of the good ol’ Supreme Court, these synthetic entities have all of the “rights” of individual citizens, yet none of the liabilities… like mortality. There is not a single human servitor of Wal-Mart who is not replaceable, from the CEO to the door greeters. Like all employees of giant corporations, they’re basically wetware, serving the needs of a more or less immortal construct.

You may have figured out where I’m going with this: corporations are a form of artificial intelligence. I hate to be the one to break it to y’all, but our society was conquered by A.I. generations ago.

I call them machine gods; “gods,” because they’re fundamentally disembodied—they are primarily conceptual, like, say, Hermes. “Machines,” because they don’t have any actual will or consciousness—what they have is programming; they take objects and convert them into money, which is essentially the same thing as saying they convert objects into power. The objects themselves are created by transforming the living—trees, livestock, landscapes, sweatshop workers—into the dead.

A fun, old-fashioned occult word for such an entity is egregore.

Taking things from a mom & pop store would directly harm the livelihood of actual human beings, who have will and consciousness. That is simply not the case with Wal-Mart, or Target, or Dollar General. These companies make billions of dollars in profit, most of which goes into the pockets of a handful of corporate executives who are already wealthy. If I could do so with impunity, I would take absolutely everything I ever wanted or needed from Wal-Mart—or any other chain store—without paying for any of it.

You know, sort of like European invaders did to Turtle Island.

That I refrain from shoplifting is not a moral stance at all, but a practical one based on fear of legal punishment. Also, my finances are solid enough that I don’t need to take stuff from the machine gods without paying; unlike many people in this country, I can afford the basics of life. There’s no good reason for me to risk a larceny case. But if my situation were to change, I certainly wouldn’t feel any pangs of fucking guilt for helping myself to the shit at Wal-Mart.

And so, my brother’s attempt to trap me with his simplistic, pseudo-Christian moral conundrum failed utterly. After wearing out his cop-mind for a few minutes trying to find an angle from whence to undermine my argument, he finally landed on this: Well, where does the transition happen between a mom & pop store and Wal-Mart?

He really thought he got me with that one, but it’s clearly absurd; once it’s possible to purchase shares of a company on the stock market, we’re pretty well into machine god territory. Although technically they are both corporations, a tremendous gulf separates my local corner store from Wal-Mart. It’s like comparing a marble to Jupiter.

***

I would argue that the state, with its penchant not only for reproducing itself, but also for manufacturing humans who require a state, is also a form of artificial intelligence.

***

Since the industrial revolution, or at least since the advent of advertising and P.R. firms, every time some fancy new technology comes around there are always True Believers—the people who can’t wait to tell you How Much Better Life Will Be Now. This fable is still popular after two centuries of revealing itself as a lie—the most significant accomplishments of most new technology are: killing more of the planet, impoverishing the working class, and consolidating wealth & control.

If you were connected to the last smoldering remnants of the counterculture in the mid ‘90s, then you might remember how everyone was convinced that the internet was going to Liberate Democracy or whatever. Anyone who’d studied Marx for two seconds should have easily predicted that the ability to buy everything online was just going to put a lot of moms & pops out of business. But could they have predicted QAnon? Hmm…

A few of the early dick-riders of cybertech, like Douglas Rushkoff, have repented of their foolish technophilia… now that it’s too late. Who knows what world we might now live in if liberals and leftists would have immediately recognized the internet as a force of evil? Actually, nevermind; they probably couldn’t have stopped it. By that point the beast was coming whether we wanted it or not.

However, I do not believe that our techno-dystopia was historically inevitable.

Back in May, author Thomas Knapp made a statement in a piece for Counterpunch that I feel is worth quoting at length before I carve it up with the Wu Tang sword:

We’ve been hurtling toward the “singularity” for at least 3.3 million years, ever since one of our ancestor hominins (probably Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus) started using tools to make their work easier.

Over those millions of years, we’ve continuously improved our tools … and our tools have continuously improved us. We’re not really the same animal we were before the automobile, let alone before the wheel. We can do things our grandparents, and those hominins, never dreamed of.

Once we started developing tools that could crack nuts better than us, speak across greater distances than us, travel faster than us, etc., it was inevitable that we’d eventually develop tools which could think better than us.”

With as much respect as is due to anyone who has just insulted their entire species, I have to say this is a gold-medal contender for the stupidest shit I’ve heard all year. I have an appreciation for healthy cynicism, but damn; this kind of Original Sin nonsense chafes my chonies.

First of all, the industrial foundation that made computer tech possible is only a couple of centuries old; go ahead and take a second to boot up your calculator, then divide 200 by 3.3 million and see what kind of ratio you get. I’d hardly describe the speed of that species-journey as “hurtling.” It looks more to me like being healthy for a hundred years, then getting total-body cancer for a fraction of a second before dropping dead.

Second, there was never anything “inevitable” about A.I., the internet, computers, industry, or even civilization. Civilization has only been around for about 5,000 years (divide that by 3.3 million; you’ll get a bigger number but not by much), and as James C. Scott examined in Against the Grain, the earliest hierarchical states were extremely fragile for any number of reasons. There was no guarantee that this way of organizing society would last as long as it has… and it probably won’t last much longer.

The industrial revolution was not the inevitable result of humans being “tool users”—a lot of other species make and use tools—it was the specific product of a specific culture in a specific region under specific circumstances. If the cosmic criminal Christopher Columbus had met a righteous end by drowning at sea before reaching Turtle Island—or, as in the short story I’m currently writing, been murdered by a coalition of time-traveling queers—it’s likely that the industrial revolution would never have happened. That means no capitalism, no planet-devouring corporations, and no motherfucking A.I.

Third, Knapp’s passage is really just a re-framing of the European “Enlightenment” myth of Progress™. The idea that factories and Skynet are part of the “natural evolution” of the human species is not only ridiculous, but it’s also a clandestine form of diet white supremacism—if the industrial revolution was a natural part of “our” evolution, and Europeans did it first, then clearly they must be more “advanced” than other people. Ergo, manifest some destiny, etc.

To commit what’s actually an enormous fuck-up and then claim it’s “natural” to the species is a phenomenal level of hubris… hubris that is basic to the social construction of whiteness. I’ve endured this crypto-racist horseshit in some form or another for my entire life, and I’m tired of it. I feel the same way about the “progress” myth that I feel about the Bering Strait Theory and White Jesus—I keep hoping it’ll retire to Debunked Land, but it never does. Since we can’t get rid of it, my only option for spiritual well-being is to mercilessly clown it.

These last few months, there have been a lot of people gnashing their teeth about the Dangers of A.I. Most of these folks have been enthusiastically feeding all of their personal data to tech companies for the last twenty years, and don’t see the relationship between the two things, but nevermind that.

I don’t see that there is any new danger from A.I. that isn’t already inherent in our cybernetic dystopia. Banal and soulless popular culture? Already got that. People relying on computers to do their thinking for them? Been common for years. Machines taking people’s jobs, or murdering them? Check. Planetary extinction? Well on our way. The “singularity” is just a secular repackaging of Judgment Day. It’s all hype.

That said, is resistance even possible?

I believe resistance is always possible… but only if you understand the threat. Over the years I’ve studied many social movements, particularly the more radical ones—labor rights, religious rebellions, anarchist insurrections, Black Power, Indigenous sovereignty, etc. One of the things all these movements have in common is that they grew from a world in which there was still such a thing as communities.

Many of the Black Panthers were organizing with neighbors whose families they’d known for two or three generations, sometimes longer. When was the last time you were in a neighborhood where everyone had known each other for that long? Gentrification is a helluva drug.

The gospels of Marxism and anarchism were spread in cafes. Nowadays, I’m ready to shed tears when I see strangers so much as strike up a conversation with each other at a cafe. Most people prefer interacting with a screen.

Our current state of hyper-alienation and total cybernetic mediation has effectively destroyed our communal relationships. Nobody like Malcolm X or Fred Hampton could ever have emerged from the world of smartphones and zuckerbook. Tech is the problem, and has been for a long time… yet people act like uncensored access to Twitter is the key to a functioning democracy.

What is to be done?

I don’t know. But I have an extra sledgehammer if you wanna play Luddite with me.

Malik Diamond is a hip hop artist, cartoonist, author, educator, and martial arts instructor. Born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, he is the descendant of kidnapped Africans, conquered Natives, and rural laborers of the Scots-Irish, Swiss, and German varieties. He currently lives in Oakland, California, with two brown humans and a white cat. E-mail: malikdiamond (at) hotmail (dot) com

Luddite ideologies argue that technology threatens individual freedom.

Title:

Content: The Unabomber Hate Hoax

The hate crime hoax is an underappreciated genre of performance art. There have been well over a hundred in the past decade—from Muslims setting fire to their own mosques, to LGBTQ-types baking their own hate cakes, and the black actor Jussie Smollett duping the entire news media with his fake MAGA-hat beat down. Yet half the country pretends these hoaxes don’t exist.

Recently we saw what appears to be a new, anti-tech variation of this art form with the arrest of Jason Duhaime. On Sept. 13, the Northeastern University virtual reality lab director allegedly called in a fake bomb threat to police. Authorities shut down half the school while response teams investigated.

Had a disciple of Ted Kaczynski resumed the attack on industrial society? Not quite.

At the time, Duhaime told Boston police and federal agents a remarkably stupid story about an exploding hard-shell case—without even bothering to fake the explosion. He also provided a frantic letter, supposedly contained in the case, which called for the university’s virtual reality lab to be closed. Unsurprisingly, federal authorities found digital copies of the letter on Duhaime’s personal computer, leading to his arrest on Oct. 4.

In a stroke of demented genius, Duhaime allegedly combined that ruse with another underappreciated genre—the crazy uncle email. Typically forwarded from an anonymous source, it is marked by hysterical capitalization, amusing typos, and an apocalyptic sense of urgency. Duhaime’s apparently phony letter is a decent satire of this style.

“It has come to our attention that this VR lab is trying to change us as a world!” it read. “Trying to get us to live in a world that we only communicate through headsets and live in a called the METAVERSE! … You are trying to change the fabric of the ideology of a peoplee [sic].”

“You are not the creator!!!!!!!! You think you are!!!” it continues. “We know you are the anti-christ sent to this world to change everything!!! We will stop you!!!”

Maintaining this quirky literary form, the letter writer accused the lab director of colluding with “Mr. Mark Zuckerberg and the US government” to surveil the world, build robots, and treat the entire population as “human test subjects” in a twisted experiment. He charged this axis with plotting to “destroy US all AS A SOCIETY,” and warned that they had “2 months to take operations down or else!!!!!”

It’s possible that Duhaime actually received emails of this sort and just snapped. Or maybe, after 25 years as an IT guy, he really needed a day off. In any case, he’s now facing two federal charges, each carrying up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Why would a person do something like this? Perhaps to discredit genuine concerns about the dark reality described in the hoaxer’s letter. For instance, in 2016 Facebook hired former Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) director Regina Dugan—a vocal advocate of digital tattoos for kids and swallowable digital pills—to oversee their secretive operations at Building 8. DARPA is aptly known as the Pentagon’s brain.

Just last year, Facebook’s Project Steno funded the implantation of an advanced brain-computer interface (BCI) at the University of California, San Francisco. The implant allows a stroke victim to translate his thoughts into text onscreen. This study was used to advance Facebook’s own BCI ambitions. The team was led by Edward Chang, a DARPA-funded neuroscientist.

The Northeastern University operation that Duhaime oversaw is on a similar wavelength. According to the Experimental Technologies Lab webpage, their projects include “using modalities such as eye tracking and biometric tools for capturing user data including electrodermal activity, heart rate, EEG, and facial expression analysis.” In other words, digital surveillance is going under the skin.

The lab is also developing AR/VR (augmented and virtual reality) to propagandize issues like “climate change” and “social justice.” By using 3D sensory simulation to impose a synthetic model of the world onto a subject’s brain, virtual reality may be the most effective mind-control system yet devised. It’s basically TV plus LSD.

“Students are going through an experience teaching them about Islamophobia,” Duhaime wrote in an Instagram post. “We’ve had people crying. It becomes an emotional response because they’ve never had that sort of experience.” Imagine a distant future, circa 2025, where an entire generation is turned into left-wing droids by way of VR “education” technologies.

The threatening letter found at Northeastern University seemed to have been inspired by the real “Unabomber Manifesto”—properly titled Industrial Society and Its Futuregiven its anti-tech stance and signature capitalization. In his tract, the murderous Kaczynski put forward two legitimate insights which were unfortunately obscured by his actual mail-bomb campaign.

First, he argued technology is creating a digital cage that threatens all organic freedom on the planet. Second, the self-hatred, virtue-signaling, and repellent weakness exhibited by “leftists” is driving the acceptance of this digital cage.

“It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power,” Kaczynski wrote. “Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS.” No one remembers this insight, though. They only remember the bombs.

Regardless of which identity group stages them, all hate hoaxes serve one purpose: to vilify “evil white conservatives” as the single greatest threat of our time. It is the genre’s defining feature. The caricature written into the bomb hoax letter is indistinguishable from the MAGA hat-wearing attackers described by Jussie Smollett. And because these hoaxes are never thoroughly debunked—and liberals need to believe in a white villain—these fictions are used to justify the digital panopticon being erected all around us.

This perpetual hate hoax hysteria is a form of virtual reality—illusions in a digital cage where powerless people can simulate a sense of control. Meanwhile, actual power accumulates in the hands of those who develop and deploy these technologies of surveillance and suppression.

Kaczynski warned about this reality. Duhaime’s alleged hoax was a poor attempt to make us forget it.

The Luddite movement is concerned that automation and artificial intelligence will displace many jobs, making human labor redundant.

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/

Yuval Harari states that modern technology has made most people redundant and emerging technologies will displace many jobs.

Resistance to change can stem from feelings of lost control or insecurity about competence, leading to employee anxiety.

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

Cognitive bias and social groups influence resistance to change.

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.

People resist technological changes, despite their benefits, which transform societies.

Title:

Content: It's always impossible.
T + T - normal size
The whole nature of life is based on permanent transformation, you can not observe any detail or part of it unless you find it constantly changing, but even in ourselves we notice the changes and changes that occur daily, from birth to death, there is no escape or escape from movement and change, whether we want it or not.
Many social scientists have observed great transformations that have occurred in societies, and I may conjure up some of them, for example, the way people deal with daily events, especially with the introduction of modern communication technologies and what is known as smart phones, which made a big leap in the march of humanity, and made the universe more like a small village, and developments are continuing, we are now living in the age of metafers and artificial intelligence.
In the face of all these human leaps, tremendous developments, and the daily information momentum that shows the speed of change of scene, there are still groups that refuse to believe and resist such obvious facts, and what is strange is that there are those who reject the changes, but resist them, and do not deal with them intelligently and professionally, and try to stand in front of them and hinder their progress, and this act despite the impossibility, And time, and make plans and do actions that will not achieve the goal or purpose, change must deal with it intelligently and skillfully, and walk on its knees, and the evidence of various nations got rid of the legacies of the past loaded with backwardness, and repaired their condition and the state of their people, and set off towards justice and happiness, because they believed in a universal year set by God, which is always the situation of impossible, Humanity will not last, no matter what the methods and tools are.
Print Email

Smartphones and artificial intelligence have significantly impacted human interaction and daily life.

300 million jobs globally are threatened by the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence.

Title:

Content: TechnologyNews
300 million jobs threatened by artificial intelligence
Analysis and Reflections
The world is witnessing an unprecedented shift in the work and employment environment.
News from Libya 24
With rapid advances in technology, the world is witnessing an unprecedented shift in the work and employment environment.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a key driver of this change, with the ability to perform complex tasks that previously required human intervention.
This stunning progress raises many questions about the future of jobs, with some studies suggesting that artificial intelligence could threaten about 300 million jobs in the coming decades.
In this article, we will review the scientific and literary analysis of this phenomenon, focusing on the economic, social and psychological dimensions of this radical transformation.
Artificial intelligence.
Economic transformation and jobs at risk
Economically, the enormous impact of artificial intelligence on the labor market is undeniable.
This impact relies heavily on the technical ability of AI to perform tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost than humans.
In sectors such as manufacturing, logistics, and retail, robots and artificial intelligence systems are beginning to replace workers in routine and repetitive tasks.
For example, AI systems can manage inventory, process orders, and even deliver logistics in a more efficient way.
This progress reduces production costs and increases profits for companies, but at the same time causes the loss of a large number of traditional jobs.
A study by Oxford University suggests that about 47% of jobs in the United States are threatened by automation over the next two decades.
This high percentage raises concerns about the fate of millions of workers who may find themselves unemployed in the near future.
Artificial intelligence.
Social and psychological dimensions of transformation
Besides the economic dimensions, there are social and psychological dimensions that must be taken into account.
Job loss is a threat to social stability, as many individuals and families depend on their jobs for their daily livelihood.
Keeping a large proportion of the workforce jobless can lead to increased rates of poverty and unemployment, putting additional strain on social welfare systems.
Psychologically, job loss can cause mental health problems such as anxiety and depression.
Work is a big part of individuals ’ identity and sense of self-worth.
When people lose their jobs, they may feel empty and lose purpose, leading to a deterioration in their mental state and health.
In addition, older people may have difficulty adapting to technological changes and learning new skills, increasing their sense of helplessness and marginalization.
Challenges and opportunities in education and rehabilitation
To meet this huge challenge, governments and educational institutions must take decisive steps in education and rehabilitation.
Investing in continuing education and training is essential to enable workers to acquire the skills needed to adapt to the demands of a changing labor market.
Customized educational and training programs can develop technical and digital skills, allowing workers to move into new jobs that require advanced skills.
In addition, aseptic intelligence itself can play an important role in improving education and training.
Artificial intelligence technologies can be used to deliver customized learning experiences that meet the needs of individual learners, increasing the effectiveness of the educational process and enhancing the chances of success in acquiring new skills.
The future horizon.
Balance between technology and humanity
Despite the great challenges that AI poses, we must remember that it also represents tremendous opportunities for humanity.
Artificial intelligence can improve many aspects of our lives, from healthcare to transportation to scientific research.
To make the most of these opportunities, we must strike a balance between technological progress and human needs.
It is important to develop policies and laws that ensure that the benefits of AI are distributed fairly and equitably.
Governments must work to create an environment that encourages innovation, while at the same time providing the necessary support to workers affected by automation.
This can be achieved through financial support programs and vocational training, as well as strengthening social safety nets.
Ultimately, AI is both a challenge and a valuable opportunity.
While threatening to lose 300 million jobs, it could also open up new avenues for innovation and economic growth.
To achieve this, we must be prepared to face the economic, social and psychological challenges that this transformation poses.
By investing in education and training, and developing equitable government policies, we can ensure that the future is bright for all, where everyone benefits from the advancement of AI and no one is left behind.
At this crucial moment in human history, we must adopt a holistic approach that combines technological progress and human care, creating a world in which AI is a positive force that enhances the well-being of all.
By doing so, we can turn threats into opportunities, and cross into a better and brighter future.
More News
Go to the top button

Investing in education and training is essential for workers to remain relevant in an automated workforce.

The World Economic Forum predicts a loss of 83 million jobs and a gain of 69 million new ones by 2027.

Title:

Content: New study pinpoints 83 million jobs that will go extinct by 2027 worldwide

The Nationthailand

Add to Home Screen.

Add
Close
TUESDAY, May 23, 2023

New study pinpoints 83 million jobs that will go extinct by 2027 worldwide

TUESDAY, May 23, 2023

The global job market will undergo significant changes between 2023 and 2027, according to the “Future of Jobs” survey conducted by the Chulalongkorn Business School and the World Economic Forum.

The survey, which involved 803 companies in 45 countries, revealed that of the current 673 million jobs, 83 million will be eliminated by 2027. However, it also said that 69 million new jobs will be created.

Prof Wilert Puriwat, dean of the business school, said on Monday that several key factors are driving job growth during this five-year period. The green transition, environmentally friendly practices, adoption of social and governance (ESG) standards and the localisation of supply chains were identified as crucial elements.

However, Puriwat also said businesses will face many challenges, such as inflation, global economic slowdown and limited access to technology.

Yet, despite these challenges, he reckoned the demand for jobs related to technology and digitalisation will rise in the future. Roles such as data analysts, big-data specialists, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning specialists as well as cybersecurity professionals should grow approximately 30% by 2027.

The survey also predicted that around 2 million positions will be created in the digital commerce sector, including roles like e-commerce specialists, digital transformation specialists, digital marketing and strategy specialists, he said.

Separately, certain jobs are expected to decline due to technological advancements, like bank tellers, postal service clerks, cashiers, data entry clerks and administrative secretaries.

The professor also predicted a growth in jobs related to sustainability, education and agriculture by 2027. These jobs are expected to focus on preserving the environment while promoting long-term business growth.

To adapt to these changes in the labour market, Prof Puriwat advised businesses to utilise AI and big data to build analytical and creative thinking skills. He also said that organisations should consider cross-functional working, building employee satisfaction and boosting productivity.

Lastly, the professor advised educational institutes to pay attention to developing students’ skills and understanding of societal changes, so they can effectively cope with the evolving labour market and contribute meaningfully to society.

40% of global employment is at risk of AI disruption, impacting older workers more, and prior education affects adaptability to AI.

Title:

Content: AI Study Claims 2 Out Of 5 Human Jobs Will Be Disrupted Or Lost To Artificial Smarts

Artificial intelligence features and tools are making their way into every facet of life, from your computer at home to search engines and productivity tools. With this advancement, there has been a growing concern that AI will be replacing jobs, and research indicates that 40% of all jobs globally could be at risk of negative impact. While this seems like a startling figure, it opens the discussion of what we humans will do next.

Earlier this week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a Washington, DC-based financial institution with ties to the United Nations and IMF 190-member countries supporting economic stability, published research on “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work.” This research reported that “40 percent of global employment is exposed to AI, with advanced economies at greater risk,” the latter closing in on 60 percent of jobs exposed due to a prevalence of cognitive-task-oriented jobs. However, with this higher risk, more advanced economies also have the means to better leverage the benefits of AI than a developing or emerging economy.

The research also notes that AI will not be limited to any one job role or sector and that, effectively, every job is in the line of fire, as it were. Regardless of job roles, it is further noted that “the advent of AI could exacerbate inequality within countries along various dimensions, such as the income level of individuals, their education level, or their gender.” Effectively, AI has the potential to replace just about any job, increasing socioeconomic divides in nations that see broad adoption of the technology.

Moreover, the report finds that AI will affect older individuals more than younger individuals and that prior education influences individuals’ adaptability. However, these negative downsides also raise the opportunity for positive change. Namely, people should be looking for the implementation of policies that ensure social cohesion and “promote the equitable and ethical integration of AI and train the next generation of workers in these new technologies” while also “protect[ing] and help[ing] retrain workers currently at risk from disruptions.”

In short, given the looming economic and social pressures, individuals should look for policies that support and protect them in a time of technological advancement rather than shut down the advancement. This research also raises the question of when we as a society determine that it is a bad thing to have our jobs replaced by robots. It simply means that we have a new challenge in supporting each other better as humanity pivots to advancing not only the sciences, but arts and creative industries as well.
Tags:  Economy, AI

AI exacerbates inequality and puts every job at risk of disruption.