upvote

points

by leoooodias9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby UpsideDownRide7 hours ago|
next
[-]
Luddites were actually pretty reasonable when you dig into it. Maybe shouldn't be using it as an insult?
reply
upvoteby foxglacier7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
They're reasonable in a self-interested net-negative game-theory kind of way, yes. But that doesn't make it a good idea for society.
reply
upvoteby tmnvix5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I'm pretty sure that the Luddite's were at least partly concerned with potential for the further exploitation of unskilled labour (in the case of mills at the time - child orphans). I don't think it would be fair to paint them as simply self-interested.
reply
upvoteby xydone4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I'll never not find it ridiculous when people mention game theory in the topic of "luddites" not wanting child labor and what not
reply
upvoteby sitkack5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What were the issues that spawned the Luddite movement? What was their argument?
reply
upvoteby Marha015 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Their issues and their argument was valid. The method they chose to use to achieve their goals was not.
reply
upvoteby Marha015 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Luddites were actually pretty reasonable when you dig into it.

No, they were not. The problems they faced were absolutely real, but the solutions they chose to attempt were stupid and counterproductive. Which is why they lost so hard, and it was not even a contest.

Socialism movement that refused to use machines and factories would inevitably lose to capitalists that embraced them.

Socialism movement that refuses to use AI will inevitably lose to capitalists that embrace it.

reply
upvoteby xydone4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Is that because of a deeper issue in one of the two philosophies or because we've chosen to define winning with things that exclusively benefit one of the two sides
reply
upvoteby cornell5327 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
For their own personal interests. Not for those of society
reply
upvoteby girvo5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I mean I don’t feel like sacrificing myself for the “good” of society. Not least because of the fact that a lot of people defining what is “good for society” seem to define it as “good for them” or use it to grab power from others…
reply
upvoteby jcattle2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
RTFA

> In the end, I don’t think that the delay in shipping PostgreSQL 19 is particularly concerning. It is not a long delay in the grand scheme of things, and it emerges directly from the project’s concern for quality.

reply
upvoteby alexpadula7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Luddism, did not expect to ever hear that word with Postgres development :>
reply
upvoteby throwaway274488 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
We could really use a lot more luddites tbh. Doesn't seem very applicable here tho.
reply
upvoteby giancarlostoro8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Dont worry, if OpenAI and Anthropic have their way and everyone loses their jobs to AI, we're all becoming luddites.
reply
upvoteby vconnor5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There is no post-hoc Luddism.
reply
upvoteby giancarlostoro5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You know what happens to technology when enough people stop using it?
reply
upvoteby ithkuil3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't in general, but if enough people stop using AI and I still have access to GPUs then I have a pretty good advantage.

So unless it gets outlawed, I don't see people opting out of it

reply
upvoteby jimbokun8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Did you honestly need a /sarcasm tag in the article?

The article also concludes that overall, yes, finding more bugs is a good thing. Basically saying it’s the LLMs “fault” that the quality is improving, alongside a slight delay to the release.

reply
upvoteby noosphr9 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
They found a more efficient way to play Whac-A-Mole with bugs, they didn't find a way to reduce bugs.
reply
upvoteby drfloyd517 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It’s a good article. Easy to read. You should read it.
reply
upvoteby noosphr7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It doesn't mention formal methods once.
reply