In the true sense where you're militarizing and committing acts of sabotage on others' property (so-called "monkeywrenching")? And then, getting suppressed and eradicated/killed by the government?
No.
I prefer the "Calm Technology"[1] approach as espoused by Amber Case[2]. I think this is the saner path forward.
We're way past it, sadly. Luigi was insanely popular for the cold blooded murder of a CEO. Hundreds of thousands of people celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder within minutes of it happening, let alone the discourse you see now, a year later. Plenty of people, even on this forum, openly advocate for "the funniest thing" happening to Elon.
What I find interesting is how the tone seems to have changed in swathes of tech industry. Until LLMs were a thing, techno-optimism and sola technologia fundamentalism seems to have been a more prominent fetish. When LLMs began having a practical and tangible effect, much of the same cohort seems to have pivoted toward aversion. If this is true—and this perception could be an artifact of selection bias driven by those with the loudest voices, though I strongly suspect it is not that entirely—then it cannot be denied how self-serving it is. Sure, we can automate away all sorts of jobs, confident that our own is the only constant and the one thing that would survive automation. But then, the cunning of reality cut down that hubris.
Of course, I do think technology ought to be adopted with prudence and wisdom. We must always remember the purpose of technology which is serving the objective human good, but to be able to do that requires more than narrow technical savvy. You need a wise and substantive grasp of the broader context within which technology is located.
This word has lost any meaning, if anything the current anti-tech wave is far closer to Amish views (subjective vetoing of new tech to avoid centralization and preserve the way of life) than to historical Luddism.
The term luddite is like the term pharisee. It's a pejorative removed from it's historical context. Actual Luddites and Pharisees would have not agreed that they were against technology or legalistic hypocrites, even though their critics tried to paint them with that brush.
Actual Luddite: your employees who are going through layoffs while your profits are rising.
Luddite according to the boss: somebody who is trying to prevent me from doing what I want to do when I want to do it just because there's 100 of them and one of me.
I was in Amish country last week, watching in bemusement as elderly women zoomed down the street in e-bikes. I thought to myself that it was understandable given that they lived on uneven terrain. But then, I wondered, why did they choose such a place to live if they were not willing to use technology?
What do I mean by that? No one knows. But it's provocative -- it gets the comments going!
(despite being a dumb comment, this is my attempt to express the serious point that Luddism is a beautiful, admirable movement, and we are in a position where it can and will be redefined completely to fit this new world; don't let anyone convince you that their Luddism is the only true Luddism, at least not yet!)
No.
I prefer the "Calm Technology"[1] approach as espoused by Amber Case[2]. I think this is the saner path forward.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calm_technology
2. https://a.co/d/02kdlV3p
- Supernote by Ratta https://supernote.com
- Air Lab by Networked Artifacts https://networkedartifacts.com
- Xteink X4 (or equivalent) https://www.xteink.com
Terrorism and murder are in vogue.
Of course, I do think technology ought to be adopted with prudence and wisdom. We must always remember the purpose of technology which is serving the objective human good, but to be able to do that requires more than narrow technical savvy. You need a wise and substantive grasp of the broader context within which technology is located.
It utterly depends on historical context. Intelligent people understand antonomasia and eponymy.
> Actual Luddites and Pharisees would have not agreed that they were against technology or legalistic hypocrites
That's neither here nor there.
Meme luddite: hate technology
Luddite according to the boss: somebody who is trying to prevent me from doing what I want to do when I want to do it just because there's 100 of them and one of me.
The boss owns the printing press.
Both are stupid misrepresentations of the movement.
What do I mean by that? No one knows. But it's provocative -- it gets the comments going!
(despite being a dumb comment, this is my attempt to express the serious point that Luddism is a beautiful, admirable movement, and we are in a position where it can and will be redefined completely to fit this new world; don't let anyone convince you that their Luddism is the only true Luddism, at least not yet!)