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.
replyI'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.
replyI'll never not find it ridiculous when people mention game theory in the topic of "luddites" not wanting child labor and what not
replyWhat were the issues that spawned the Luddite movement? What was their argument?
replyTheir issues and their argument was valid. The method they chose to use to achieve their goals was not.
reply> Luddites were actually pretty reasonable when you dig into it.
replyNo, 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.
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
replyFor their own personal interests.
Not for those of society
replyI 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