That’s a bit of a false analogy because radio never threatened to take away millions of people’s livelihoods.
A more apt comparison would be the actual Luddites during the Industrial Revolution who smashed machines because massive amounts of people were being turned off the land and their traditional economic activities were unable to compete with machine based production.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Radio destroyed a lot of jobs for musicians. Before radio, there was only live music. With radio, a single professional orchestra or big band could supply the music for everyone with a receiver. Recordings came later and destroyed more jobs. Before “talkies”, cinemas had live music. Musicians did protest against such new technologies.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Then why aren’t people talking about unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, and such things?
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
Famously, ye olde Boomer could just walk into a factory and get a job. None of these jobs exist anymore, mostly because of automation. Of course, none of those people wrote for a living, or had access to an audience of millions. I doubt that AI will displace jobs on a vastly larger scale but it is certainly communicated on a vastly larger scale.
If you think about all these jobs that might be displaced by AI, how many of them existed in the 1950ies? Many jobs, like web designer, are new. Either these new jobs reflect the displacement of old jobs, or you need a lot more people to do more jobs. Granted, global population has grown a lot, but that’s not where these new jobs came from, right?
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
Yes, the narrative is all about more money for (intellectual) property owners. That doesn’t make a lot of sense if people are worried about losing their jobs.
That’s a bit of a false analogy because radio never threatened to take away millions of people’s livelihoods.
A more apt comparison would be the actual Luddites during the Industrial Revolution who smashed machines because massive amounts of people were being turned off the land and their traditional economic activities were unable to compete with machine based production.
People don’t just hate AI because it’s new, they hate it because it will condemn millions of people to poverty while making a handful of rich people even more rich.
Radio destroyed a lot of jobs for musicians. Before radio, there was only live music. With radio, a single professional orchestra or big band could supply the music for everyone with a receiver. Recordings came later and destroyed more jobs. Before “talkies”, cinemas had live music. Musicians did protest against such new technologies.
Then why aren’t people talking about unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, and such things?
You’re right, every new technology displaces some jobs, but AI is on a vastly larger scale (as was industrial production technology).
As to your last question, it’s because the people controlling the narrative don’t want to pay for unemployment benefits, industrial retraining, or anything else that doesn’t immediately make them more money.
Famously, ye olde Boomer could just walk into a factory and get a job. None of these jobs exist anymore, mostly because of automation. Of course, none of those people wrote for a living, or had access to an audience of millions. I doubt that AI will displace jobs on a vastly larger scale but it is certainly communicated on a vastly larger scale.
If you think about all these jobs that might be displaced by AI, how many of them existed in the 1950ies? Many jobs, like web designer, are new. Either these new jobs reflect the displacement of old jobs, or you need a lot more people to do more jobs. Granted, global population has grown a lot, but that’s not where these new jobs came from, right?
Yes, the narrative is all about more money for (intellectual) property owners. That doesn’t make a lot of sense if people are worried about losing their jobs.