The term "Luddite" in the 21st century refers to individuals or groups who resist technological change, particularly when it threatens jobs or established work practices.

Modern examples include workers opposing automation in manufacturing or retail, unions contesting the introduction of AI that may lead to job displacement, and community groups resisting surveillance technologies or algorithmic management at work.

These forms of resistance echo historical Luddites, who protested machinery due to economic hardship, but now encompass broader concerns associated with labor rights and economic security .

Resistance stems from economic insecurity, fear of job loss or skill obsolescence, and the perception that technology adoption lacks adequate worker consultation.

Psychological factors such as fear of complexity, loss of control, disruption of social bonds, and attachment to familiar workflows contribute significantly.

Culturally, individuals may view traditional skills as central to their identity, making technological change unsettling .

Furthermore, skepticism exists toward large technology companies perceived as prioritizing profit over worker welfare, raising concerns about surveillance, privacy erosion, and concentration of power, which deepens resistance .

This resistance can have mixed impacts on organizations.

Negatively, it may slow innovation cycles, increase conflict, or hinder productivity.

Conversely, it can prompt more inclusive and ethical technology deployment, ensuring that changes consider worker welfare and job quality, thereby fostering sustainable adoption .

Building rapport with technologically resistant coworkers involves validating their concerns as legitimate labor and social issues rather than dismissing them as irrational fears.

Practical strategies include initiating open, respectful dialogues where concerns about job security and work conditions are discussed candidly.

The term "Luddite" in the 21st century refers to individuals or groups who resist technological change, particularly when it threatens jobs or established work practices.

Title:

Content: Does AI make the arts poorer?
The real difference between the rich and the poor is the human mind.
▲ Since we have AI tools, we can do things quickly and well with a simple prompt, and the cost is low. (Illustration / Reuters)
2nd / Podcaster
I had a friend who had been unemployed for a while and asked me if I had a job for him to do, such as simple things like keeping an account and sorting out documents.
I said, if you asked me two years earlier, there must be, but unfortunately not now.
In the past, those chores took time, since the AI tool, as long as the simple prompt can be completed, the monthly fee is only a few hundred yuan, two or three hundred hourly wage students may not do so well.
He listened to me, didn ’ t believe it, and was curious to ask me how I use AI now.
In fact, the application is too broad and too complicated. To make him understand it as soon as possible, I cite my entire workflow as an example.
For example, when writing an article, in the stage of collecting materials, AI helps me to make notes of books / meetings / lectures / courses with speech, and the content is accurate and the grammar is strict. It can also be converted into various forms of charts, different lengths and various articles.
At the writing stage, I will discuss with AI what different topics can be cut into perspective, such as this article I want to know how AI is changing our society, ask it to help me summarize the main views on the Internet, and I will continue to ask for some details, and also ask it to grab the latest data for me.
Next, before po comes to the community, ask it to help me modify the typos and punctuation, the correction only takes a few seconds, and the text creation is basically completed.
I asked my friend, do you think you can do better, faster and cheaper than AI?
▲ AI can help users to take notes with voice, and the content of speech to text is accurate and the grammar is strict. It can also be converted into various forms of charts, different lengths and various articles.
(Chart / CFP)
Next, the image creation.
Now many devices, including WebCam and Monocular, the camera can lock the portrait to move in small amplitude, and even deliberately create a natural hand shake, self-portrait images are becoming more and more dependent on others.
Before the oral video, mainly rely on improvisation or reading, the former plays subtitles until the hand is broken, the latter has to get a reader to adjust the speed, now AI recognition subtitles are very common, the reader also evolved into the script will follow my words run (used readers will know how convenient this is), greatly speeding up the efficiency of recording videos.
It is also a technology derived from AI speech recognition: AI editing. Although it is not completely free from manual work, the editor is now editing by reading the text, without the need to listen with ears, which saves a lot of effort.
Music and images can be generated by AI, saving a lot of time to find materials and reducing the risk of copyright infringement.
As for the job that my friends are looking for, such as document processing and answering e-mail, I just write a SOP file to feed the robot, and it can do it flawlessly, and there is no need to rest for 24 hours.
It doesn ’ t matter if what is said above is not understood, in simple terms, I used to find two or three more people to deal with the process of chores, and it was replaced by AI, and AI did well and fast.
After all, it was all simple work.
▲ Document processing, e-mail and other things, as long as you write a SOP file to feed the robot, it can do flawless, and 24 hours without rest.
(Chart / CFP)
My friend is angry after hearing it.
I said, but I still need someone to help me, because I ’ m saving a lot of time now, have more capacity, and have the opportunity to make more money.
Do you do business sponsorship? Do you write creative scripts that are popular with young people? Do you have experience in IP marketing?
He was frustrated and said that he would not be those, as if he could only be eliminated.
Then he complained to me, saying that Taiwan's industry is serious, only the technology industry can make money, and other people live in deep water.
In fact, every technological innovation is like this, the British textile industry in the 19th century industrialization, a group of textile workers are also very angry at their loss of work, in the factory to destroy the loom.
These people are called Luddites. Now Luddites have become synonymous with opposition to technological progress. Most people also know that Luddites are marginal beings who will eventually die.
But it is obviously not accurate to attribute the fierce competition to the struggle for literature. In the example above, I am also a writer, but my property has leapt with the industrial revolution.
The difference is that I did two things: the first is the investment trend, and the second is that I treat AI as extremely cheap capital and use it to make money.
But I have taken advantage of resources, like I do not mix badly, will mix better, and mixed badly, will only mix worse.
Times change too fast, now this environment can not guarantee that you listen carefully to the classroom to teach those textbooks out of the society to eat, talent needs a flexible brain, as well as a variety of information judgment, to keep up with the pace of faster and faster technological development.
Then it is true that some people can not do, some people from the past to the present, all want to do the simplest job, they either can not find a job, or they have to get a lower salary than the robot.
▲ In the era of rapid technological changes, the advantages of language have been greatly weakened.
(Image from Google Translate)
In fact, education must be reformed as soon as possible, we need new departments, abolish some old departments, and now it seems like the pure language department of the college is really harming students, ensuring that they graduate and lose their jobs. (This sentence is easy to be misunderstood, it seems that I am belittling a particular department, I am not necessary.) And...
In my experience as a minor in Japanese at university, although I can also study culture and history, the advantages of language have been greatly weakened, and the teaching syllabus must be adjusted.)
The gap between the rich and the poor is inevitable, and policies can only try to avoid too many poor people, otherwise there will be social unrest.
Put on the beautiful idea of science fiction, before the civil unrest of mankind, I hope that robots will take care of our food like mothers.
Can you think about it? – I love this post.
Welcome to join the "cloud theory fan group" to see more!
● This article is authorized to be reproduced from the “XIX ” Facebook page.
The above remarks do not represent the position of this website. Welcome to submit "Cloud Theory" to let high-quality good articles be seen by more people, please send to editor88 @ ettoday.net or click here to submit, this website reserves the right to delete the text.
Hot Click 》
► Erotic websites can really be used for united warfare!
You want color, you want health, you don't want to be watched.
► Not "internal waters", not "territorial waters", but "territorial waters".
► Ammunition Preemptive Panic The DPP may be the initiator of the war.
► Can Singapore ’ s 3-Day Weekend Pass Taiwan ’ s Work-Time Revolution?
Share with friends:
Follow us
Back to the top.

Modern examples include workers opposing automation in manufacturing or retail, unions contesting the introduction of AI that may lead to job displacement, and community groups resisting surveillance technologies or algorithmic management at work.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

These forms of resistance echo historical Luddites, who protested machinery due to economic hardship, but now encompass broader concerns associated with labor rights and economic security .

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

Resistance stems from economic insecurity, fear of job loss or skill obsolescence, and the perception that technology adoption lacks adequate worker consultation.

Title:

Content: Technology in the face of democracy
In September 2021, data scientist Frances Hogan resigned her position at Facebook and then revealed tens of thousands of pages of the company ’ s documents, research and correspondence, which were submitted to Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The documents, which sparked a storm of hate and lawsuits against Facebook and its CEO, indicate that the platform not only affects the mental health of adolescents, enables the spread of populist hate speech, and enhances the work of human trafficking gangs, but the company is aware of these drawbacks, and is either satisfied with them or unable to reduce them; contrary to what Mark Zuckerberg says about the platform ’ s ability and algorithms to provide a safer environment for teenagers. To contribute to the promotion of democratic values and the reduction of hate speech.
In this article, I do not want to try to prove the company ’ s intention or claim, but rather to trace the reasons that made such phenomena possible, whether on Facebook, Instagram or other social media platforms; which will lead us to the conclusion that this case does not apply to Facebook alone, and it is not related to someone ’ s intention or disability, but it is a fundamental characteristic of all the tech giants and determine how they work and dominate their business model. This is what the American economist Shoshana Zuboff calls “behavioral surplus value. ”
In Zuboff ’ s view, the tech giants of today ’ s world are operating on a single business model that Google established after the dot-com bubble in 2008 — one that doesn ’ t stop selling consumer data, information, and surveillance — what Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism, ” but rather establishes what Zuboff calls the“ prediction goods market, ” a market that relies on collecting user information from social networks and converting it into algorithms. able to predict their behavior.
These algorithms and their results are then sold to marketers, contestants in election races, or authoritarian governments to monitor consumers more broadly and make their control more monopolistic in the market.
Zuboff ’ s analysis will be very useful in understanding the phenomenon, which leads us to trace its historical roots in the first section of the article.
It seems that we will be facing a fundamental thesis that we will have to criticize, and this criticism is the first objective of the article.
There is a thesis led by Zuboff herself and shared by many of the top technicians in these companies, and a number of commentators and democratic politicians, all of whom argue that the phenomena revealed by the Hogan documents and other similar phenomena are real, but they seem to see it as a tax to be paid for the promised fruits of the technical world, and that algorithms are able to correct its course by themselves, especially Zuboff. Inside it is led by the “top minds of the business world. ”
The second argument the article will address is that a mere commodity such as the “prediction market commodity ” is hostile to democracy, the rule of law, equality, and privacy.
It is true that “surveillance capitalism ” is part of monopoly capitalism, but I would argue that it goes beyond this, and that its effects extend from the economy to all spheres of social life, especially its negative effects on the future of democracy.
The third thing we focus on is that falling into a pessimistic vision of humanity ’ s future under technology is just another facet of the rosy narrative promoted by tech giants of the story of the inevitable rise of technology, but in its pessimistic version.
The emergence of the forecasting market and behavioral surplus value
After the rise of neoliberal capitalism following the waves of inflation and recession in the 1970s, the authors of neoliberal programs decided that the policies of state intervention in the economy and the extension of social protection for the people were no longer profitable.
Neoliberalism retained the core elements of classical economic liberalism, such as freedom and individualism, but the role of the state in social protection and welfare programs was hotly contested by policymakers and legislators.
While some countries in Europe have pursued so-called systemic liberalism aimed at maintaining and expanding social protection programmes, notably Germany, Britain and the United States have gone the other way, reducing the role of the state in the economy and expanding market freedom, trade and international lending institutions at the expense of social spending.
Hence the story of monopolistic technology as we know it today began, coinciding with the collapse of the value of the shares of major technology companies in the so-called dot-com bubble in 2001, which was followed by severe frustration with the future of technology and its promise and ability to develop capitalism.
After that, Google took a step that will henceforth define the future of tech companies and their practices; the move is to abandon its hostility to advertising gains due to shareholder pressure.
Google has decided to increase advertising revenue through hell, which has opened the door for the rest of the companies to follow suit by monopolizing access to its users ’ data and using it in online promotion and marketing services, which has long been known as “data exhaustion. ”
Using its superior analytical capabilities, Google has adopted a new way of making money by building algorithms that can predict consumer behavior; from monitoring your online activity, for example, the algorithms recognize your buying habits and preferences and ways of diversifying your sources of consumption, and of course, the level and types of spending, and even your reluctance to buy a particular product when you receive an ad for another.
These algorithms provide sellers with not only real-time information about consumer preferences, but also predictions of consumer preferences in the near future.
With this behavioral revolution, excess data has become the basis for new prediction markets that we now know as targeted advertising.
This is what Zuboff calls “behavioral surplus-value, ” where a user ’ s online behavior, obscene and monopolized data, becomes a mine for value extraction and profit.
Google does not care about the consumer and his decisions, and this data is often taken without consent or acknowledgement from the consumer.
This new type of “prediction goods market ” quickly became a role model for all major Silicon Valley companies, and advertising became as important to Google as the development of the search engine on which the company was founded.
When Google went public in 2004, the company revealed that after adopting the plan, it increased its revenue from 2001 to 2004 by more than 3,500 percent.
Zuboff points out that Google CEO Sheryl Sandberg ’ s move to Facebook represented a magical, contagious transition to this new plan based on behavioral surplus value extraction, or “prediction goods trade, ” which is no longer limited to Silicon Valley companies since 2008, but has moved to sectors such as insurance, retail, healthcare, finance, entertainment, education, transportation, and so on, creating a“ new production pattern. ” Zubov is a whole “new environment ” of suppliers, producers, customers and market makers.
In that market, every product or service starts with “smart ” or“ customized, ” every device connects to the internet, and every “digital assistant ” is simply an interface for a supply chain of behavioral data that helps predict the future of what Zuboff calls the“ surveillance economy. ”
The “prediction goods market ” merges three categories into one:“ user, consumer, and consumer data, ” and this triad is henceforth just multiple facets of a single phenomenon, which Zuboff calls “indigenous people ” in the style of the colonial invasion and exploitation model.
Today we do not lack a plethora of expressions that attempt to describe what the technological market has changed the structure of global capitalism.
We will find “algorithmic capitalism, ”“ cognitive capitalism, ” “communicative capitalism, ”“ data capitalism, ” “digital capitalism, ”“ information capitalism, ” “platform capitalism, ”“ surveillance capitalism, ” and “virtual capitalism, ” to name a few.
Recently, then, capitalism is abandoning itself and retreating into a world of “data emperors, ” which is why this phenomenon has been called“ digital feudalism, ” “technological feudalism, ”“ information feudalism, ” or simply “new feudalism. ”
But if tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon are not accumulating their wealth through capitalism ’ s old exploitative mechanisms of labor itself, and while today ’ s production process is not based on manufacturing, but on monopolistic control over data sets and algorithms to extract advertising revenues generated elsewhere in the capitalist economy, is this a new stage of capitalism?
The big companies that rely on technology do not make a profit, but their market value continues to rise due to speculation in the markets, representing what is known as the model of "selling growth", is this model considered a transgression of capitalism?
Is it a new form of “digital expropriation ” that fuels a new logic of accumulation that can be seen as a structural change in the structure of capitalism, similar to the model of“ accumulation by plunder ” posited by David Harvey in The New Imperialism?
Or is it, as Cedric Durand put it in his book “Technical Feudalism, ” that the tech giants are effectively subjecting us to their rule by controlling information and knowledge in a“ knowledge monopoly, ” thus creating ever more sophisticated means of seizing surplus value without getting involved in the production process?
Darwinism and counter-Darwinism
The main problem of technology today, and the way it extracts value through monopoly, is not merely that it is a monopoly, not that it leads us to a social reality similar to Big Brother ’ s world, but that it is based on a structural transformation of the labor market.
The merging of knowledge with technology and markets means that everyone who has nothing to sell will be despised, and a new kind of individualism will triumph, not the “liberal individualism ” promised by the liberal project, but a technical individualism that cares so much about the“ user-consumer-data ” triad. Achille Mbembe: “The Nasi ” who will be every day the firewood of a new“ trend ”, a new empty battle, incitement against minorities, or the fire of populism that has become the hallmark of our time.
What matters is that the individual is a vessel of data, a catalyst for more consumption of this class struggle that denies its nature on the Internet, for more gain, the Hogan documents published by the Wall Street Journal tell us.
It will now seem to every user aware that “contempt ” is the basic commodity of the Internet, as the statistics contained in the documents indicate that the most popular and promoted materials are the materials inciting hatred and intolerance against minorities and insults and self-generated nonsense every day, which are most able to acquire interested people who volunteer their data to participate in battles for gains, as leaked studies from Facebook Labs tell us. A humanistic library containing the most accurate information of community members that is updated in real time for the purposes of censorship and social regulation, as China ’ s experience tells us.
So it doesn ’ t stop at monopoly, it doesn ’ t break down into a pessimistic picture as terms like “feudalism ” or“ big brother ” are trying to tell us.
The problem with such critical attempts is that they confront conflict-based technical Darwinism with a counter-Darwinism stemming from what American businessman and writer Alvin Toffler in the 1960s called the “shock of the future, ” a disappointment in the ambition of resisting capitalism.
These thinkers now present technology to us as a new stage in our human history, as if it were irrelevant to the recent capitalist past.
Technology and its hostility to democracy
The philosophers of the Enlightenment preached historical progress, a linear time on a straight path to better and higher, but the irony of the history of progress is that every historical frustration we have experienced has turned the idea of progress against itself and portrayed history as an ominous march towards further degeneration and ugliness.
The present of technology is no exception: the fleeting hopes of the rise of technology, which heralded a future in which machine and man are allied against evil, have been transformed into an antithesis that foreshadows the merging of machine and evil into a tragedy in which man becomes the victim.
We just have to start by accepting that every sinister scenario we invent to terrorize ourselves is only a part of our history, built by human beings like us, and can be transcended.
Western intellectual traditions have traditionally explained and understood the modern political world through a dichotomy between the private and the public, with the private sphere centered on the family, personal life and self-reflection, and the public centered on public morality, communion, governance of the state, administration, and institution.
But there is a third scope proposed by the famous German political thinker Hanna Arendt that mediates these two arguments: the “social ” sphere where collective feelings, feelings, and preferences are concentrated among connected groups of people — a set of values that people share without agreement that express their hopes, moral biases, and vision for the future.
When democracy defeated Nazism in World War II, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s coincided with the rise of globalization, a set of public values had settled in the West, with the private between the values of conservative Christian families and the values of generalized individualism, dominated by capitalist values, the state of institutions, the free economy, and the decline of the welfare state.
The social sphere is dominated by the values of democracy, individualism, scientific appreciation, technical optimism, and other values that neoliberal capitalism reluctantly shared with democracy under the pressure of labor movements and social participation.
However, a greater aspiration is emerging within the institutions of neoliberalism, which has tended increasingly to abandon democratic values, with greater emphasis on reaping the benefits of globalization and wealth accumulation, and withdrawing from the industrial to the financial economy.
At the height of this ambition, technology and its investments waited for the attention they deserved.
Technology today is taking over human history, and the German philosopher Martin Heidegger once warned us that the problem of technology does not stop at the fact that our perception of the future is always linked to technology in a way that prevents us from imagining any future at all without thinking about it, but goes beyond that to the essence of technology itself, the social motivations behind its creation, reliance and attachment to it.
If it is the case that we are looking at technology as a savior who will arrive in the future to solve our tragedies at one time, and seeing it as a catastrophe that drags the present into an ominous future at another time, the tragedy here is not due to technology as a set of machines or tools to extract value, but rather to what led us to turn between these two extremes.
There are several reasons why the technical age is not a transgression of neoliberalism, not even a transgression of the worst.
One of these reasons is that the crisis of neoliberalism has manifested itself in a set of chronic problems that technology does not overcome and replace with other problems that require new thinking, but rather radicalize, expand and transfer to other spheres of social and individual life; or simply generalize them.
The Norwegian-American economist Thorstein Veblen argued more than a decade ago in his book The Theory of the Luxury Class that the capitalist class by its very nature tends to withdraw from the burden of engaging in the productive process, which culminates with the expansion of monetary capitalism and the increasing transformation of relations between the capitalist and other producers, producers and workers into creditors and debtors. Technical "user-consumer-consumer data", in which the debtor himself becomes the user, the worker, the consumer and the data miner that feeds the forecasting market.
This brings us to a second crisis caused by neoliberalism, the crisis of employment, which is usually presented as a problem independent of the rest of the productive system that gave rise to it.
It goes without saying that the tendency of capital to invest in debt products will attract a large amount of assets that were previously earmarked for investment in commodity production, which will have a negative impact on employment opportunities.
But if we look at the essence of this technological triad, we find that technological transformation is at the heart of this process: less reliance on labor, less wage labor, because the very existence of the triad “user ” on the Internet produces value by itself through an algorithm that works in a vacuum of its own, which is originally a set of programming phrases written by one or more people.
The programmer ’ s income may rise to unprecedented levels, and indeed this is happening, but on the other hand, the chances of employment will be very low.
Most importantly, it brings us to a third dilemma: social inequality will increase dramatically, as “knowledge workers ” will have all the opportunities, while anyone who finds nothing to sell in the commodity market relationships of forecasting will be shamed.
We shall live, or rather we shall live, in a new division of social positions in which knowledge becomes, by definition, logarithmic knowledge, and there will be no value left for any other profession that is unable to transform itself into the language of zeros and ones.
One of the most important characteristics of the modern technical sector is that it operates, to a significant extent, outside the framework of the law governing the rest of social life, in a situation similar to that of the medieval church of independent rule.
Technology ’ s work outside the law is due to two things: the “computational ambiguity ” inherent in the very nature of its work.
Western critics and philosophers of the law have long complained about the ambiguity of the law, about the multiplicity of cases of application of the law, and about incidents of social and human life, but now we are faced with a phenomenon so vague that the legislator is unable to understand the subject to which he will be asked to enact a legal framework to regulate his work.
We have all seen the expressions of the congressional committee at the hearing of Mark Zuckerberg against the background of his accusation of misuse of Facebook subscriber data for political purposes, a scene not without the horror on Zuckerberg ’ s face, but the signs of surprise and misunderstanding that the members of the hearing committee, as people of the world war generation unfamiliar with the Internet, are unmistakable.
The second thing that surrounds the mystery of the technology is the topics it deals with and depends on its transformation into commodities, and the pace at which this rapid and unprecedented process took place in history, a process that has no legal precedent, of course.
Did Google, for example, have to obtain permits from countries around the world to photograph its streets and monitor its maps in order to develop the Google Maps app?
Did an algorithm to track phones to detect traffic jams on motorways and pedestrians need the approval of a constitutional court in a country?
The answer is no, of course.
Even the most democratic legal solutions, especially those that the EU is doing through its various institutions and are already appreciated, trying to reduce the opportunities and possibilities of the technical monopoly, and trying to protect the privacy of its citizens against the transformation of their data into resources for extraction of value; they all seem to remain worthless for two reasons: First, they are trying to legalize the extraction of data that should not exist in the first place. Second, political and authoritarian uses for security control are attractive to any country with borders and sovereignty, especially at the first intimidation of its political borders, the harm of refugees to its national unity, or the harmony of its social fabric, as the case of China clearly illustrates.
Finally, technology relies on undermining individual self-determination, individual autonomy, and decision-making rights in favor of the unfettered flow of behavioral data that feeds markets that are ours but not ours.
This anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian tyrant is best described as a market-driven coup from above: the overthrow of a people hidden within a digital Trojan horse, without finally being able to emancipate.
Based on the power of human inclusion within it, this coup achieves exclusive concentrations of knowledge and power, that is, it is a form of tyranny that feeds on people, but not people.
Paradoxically, this coup is celebrated as “personalizing ” things, while ignoring, transcending, and replacing everything that is personal.
Source: The Island

Psychological factors such as fear of complexity, loss of control, disruption of social bonds, and attachment to familiar workflows contribute significantly.

Culturally, individuals may view traditional skills as central to their identity, making technological change unsettling .

Furthermore, skepticism exists toward large technology companies perceived as prioritizing profit over worker welfare, raising concerns about surveillance, privacy erosion, and concentration of power, which deepens resistance .

This resistance can have mixed impacts on organizations.

Negatively, it may slow innovation cycles, increase conflict, or hinder productivity.

Conversely, it can prompt more inclusive and ethical technology deployment, ensuring that changes consider worker welfare and job quality, thereby fostering sustainable adoption .

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

Building rapport with technologically resistant coworkers involves validating their concerns as legitimate labor and social issues rather than dismissing them as irrational fears.

Practical strategies include initiating open, respectful dialogues where concerns about job security and work conditions are discussed candidly.