In the lush paradise of Jamaica, where the sun kisses the turquoise sea and reggae beats drift through the air, a tiff of epic proportions erupted between my dear friend and me. It all started when I dared to insult her in the most nonchalant, tongue-in-cheek fashion. The target of my jest? Her vehement opposition to artificial intelligence (AI) which, as it turns out, is as contentious as it gets in this age of rapid technological transformation.
But worry not; I come with no intention to provoke strife. Instead, let me serve up a 949-word dish, sprinkled with humour, to help us explore the fascinating intersection of AI and “Luddites” in today’s earthquake-shaken Jamaica.
In the history of friendly arguments, my “AI vs. Luddites” debate was a classic. It all started when, in a moment of levity, I probed my dear friend’s aversion to AI. I summoned the name of the late Wilmot “Motty” Perkins, a famous Jamaican journalist / broadcaster known for his deep love of words. To cut to the chase, I introduced her to a term that had long been hovering in the recesses of my Motty- inspired vocabulary — “Luddite.” For those not yet in the know, “Luddite” is a term hurled at those who resist technological innovation. Think of it as a playful dig meant to stir the pot and spark a debate.
Her reaction was, let’s say, a tad dramatic. With a hiss, she acknowledged my query and urged me to get to the point. In a moment of reckless abandon I dropped the term “Luddite” with all the nonchalance of someone about to push a button marked “DOOM.” She took it with surprising calm. But, for a brief moment, I feared a storm was brewing, and I would become the lightning rod for November’s “insult du jour”.
To put things in perspective, I turned to the ever-ready Oxford Languages for a definition of the incendiary term. “Derogatory,” it declared with a flourish, leaving me to ponder the weight of my linguistic folly. The term “Luddite” is, as it turns out, not an endearing nickname. It’s akin to brandishing a sign saying, “I fear the future,” and parading it down the digital streets.
This led me to an article by Kyle Chayka in the New Yorker, in which he delves into the historical origins of the Luddite movement. Back in 1811, in the throes of the Industrial Revolution, textile workers in Nottingham rose against the onslaught of automated machinery, spearheaded by the dastardly “lace frames.” As they vented their frustrations by smashing the machines, the Government sent soldiers into the town, turning the industrial landscape into a slow-burning civil war.
The Luddites, aptly named after a rebellious knitting-frame apprentice named Ned Ludd, are often seen as the ancestors of today’s “Luddites” who resist technological advancements. But Chayka presents a compelling twist: the original Luddites were not against technology per se. They were champions of workers’ rights, fighting against the iniquities of profit-mongering machines.The hero of Chayka’s story is George Mellor, a hulking labourer who took up the Luddite cause. In a time when machines threatened their livelihoods, the Luddites found themselves in a battle against factory owners. George Horsfall, a factory owner of ill repute, even threatened to ride through “Luddite blood” to keep his machines running, which, let’s admit, is quite the exaggeration for dramatic effect.
However, it wasn’t all wanton destruction. The Luddites, under the guise of General Ludd or King Ludd, wrote public letters and signed threats to factory owners, leading some of them to revert to manual labour. The Luddites were, in essence, early-day activists and punks standing up for the working class, much like modern-day Robin Hoods.
And here’s where it gets interesting. Chayka argues that the message of the Luddites is still relevant today, particularly in the age of AI. Our lives are becoming increasingly entwined with digital platforms that turn our labour and attention into profit. How many times have we wished to take a cutlass to our MacBook or Lenovo ThinkBook when it misbehaves? The Luddites, in their own way, sought revenge against the innovation that held them hostage, and they may have been on to something. “Luddite” today sounds more like a compliment, an acknowledgment of those who stand up for the working class in the face of relentless technological advancement.
But, there’s more to the story. The rise of AI and automation brings both opportunities and challenges. On the bright side, AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, from healthcare to transportation. It can increase efficiency, automate mundane tasks, and even enhance creativity. However, on the darker side, AI threatens jobs in various sectors, from customer service to content creation. The encroachment of AI-generated content can be compared to the inferior goods flooding the market during the Luddite era, where subpar products eventually became the norm, and social norms adapted.
In today’s AI age, the victims of automation aren’t always visible, but they’re no less real. Low-paid content moderators labour behind the scenes to ensure the quality of AI-generated content, a task that can lead to psychological distress. There’s no single machine to chop up to disable AI, as it exists in vast server farms and relies on the text and images created by humans. The debate surrounding AI’s impact on jobs is ongoing, with some experts predicting job losses while others like me remain optimistic about the potential for new roles and opportunities.
The tragedy of the original Luddites is not that they failed to stop industrialization but the way they failed. In the end, Parliament sided with entrepreneurs, and the Luddites’ frame-breaking actions were made a capital offence. Many were executed, and human rebellion proved inadequate against the march of technological progress.
Yet, Chayka’s article suggests that the response to technological changes is not predetermined. Regulation and societal actions can shape the outcome. The Luddites could have been protected by regulation, and their fight eventually evolved into a broader political movement. In the era of AI, we have the chance to determine whether automation benefits all or only a select few.
In conclusion, dear friends, the term “Luddite” may not be as derogatory as it sounds. It’s a nod to those who stand up for the working class and challenge the unequal distribution of benefits in the face of technological change. AI brings both opportunities and challenges, and our response to these changes will shape the future. So, let’s not be divided by labels but rather join in the conversation to ensure that technology benefits everyone. Let’s raise a toast to the Luddites, and to a bright, equitable future where Jamaica, even in the face of earthquakes and looming, dreamed up SMRs in wet Portland, stands strong and united.
