We tend to think that markets reflect consumer choice. But the artificial-intelligence boom has been powered by the investment decisions of concentrated capital rather than by consumer demand.
AI has been around a lot longer than most people realize. Grouping all AI into whatever cloud garbage silicon valley tech bros are selling makes them look like Luddites.
Language is constantly evolving and the meaning of certain terms shifts between eras. Right now everyone understands “AI” to mean the LLM slop factories being forced on the world by a trillion dollars in investment cash. If you want to be upset about that, be upset at Silicon Valley for spending so much of that VC money on marketing to corrupt the public’s understanding.
Also, “Luddite” isn’t the insult you think it is. The luddites were a pro-labor movement, not an anti-technology movement, and many of the labor protections we have today (despite being under attack by big tech) are owed to their successes.
“A Luddite is someone who opposes new technology, computers, or automation. The word comes from 19th-century English textile workers who smashed factory machines that threatened their jobs, though today it is often used as a general label for anyone who dislikes or resists tech.”
Interesting lecture about meaning of words there bro.
Yeah, because the ownership class fought tooth-and-nail to corrupt the public’s understanding of the name, just like they’re doing now with ‘AI’. You can’t be mad at the bastardization of one term without being mad at the other when the same forces lead to both.
So: your point is the usage of AI in common vernacular should not have changed from its meaning 50 years ago, and using it in its modern sense as shorthand for LLMs and generative models is bad.
And your point is also that the modern usage of a Luddite is correct and you should ignore the original group and the conditions that led this group to smash the textiles because the usage of that word changing is fine and we should not look at original usage?
Got it. Words change. Sometimes. And other times no.
AI has been around a lot longer than most people realize. Grouping all AI into whatever cloud garbage silicon valley tech bros are selling makes them look like Luddites.
Language is constantly evolving and the meaning of certain terms shifts between eras. Right now everyone understands “AI” to mean the LLM slop factories being forced on the world by a trillion dollars in investment cash. If you want to be upset about that, be upset at Silicon Valley for spending so much of that VC money on marketing to corrupt the public’s understanding.
Also, “Luddite” isn’t the insult you think it is. The luddites were a pro-labor movement, not an anti-technology movement, and many of the labor protections we have today (despite being under attack by big tech) are owed to their successes.
“A Luddite is someone who opposes new technology, computers, or automation. The word comes from 19th-century English textile workers who smashed factory machines that threatened their jobs, though today it is often used as a general label for anyone who dislikes or resists tech.”
Interesting lecture about meaning of words there bro.
Yeah, because the ownership class fought tooth-and-nail to corrupt the public’s understanding of the name, just like they’re doing now with ‘AI’. You can’t be mad at the bastardization of one term without being mad at the other when the same forces lead to both.
So: your point is the usage of AI in common vernacular should not have changed from its meaning 50 years ago, and using it in its modern sense as shorthand for LLMs and generative models is bad.
And your point is also that the modern usage of a Luddite is correct and you should ignore the original group and the conditions that led this group to smash the textiles because the usage of that word changing is fine and we should not look at original usage?
Got it. Words change. Sometimes. And other times no.
AI