The Luddites weren’t anti-technology—they opposed machines that destroyed their livelihoods and benefited factory owners at workers’ expense. Their resistance was a critique of the social and economic chaos caused by the Industrial Revolution. Over time, “Luddite” became an insult due to capitalist propaganda, dismissing their valid concerns about inequality and exploitation. Seen in context, they were early critics of unchecked capitalism and harmful technological change—issues still relevant today.
This is completely missing the point that many artists have already lost their jobs because companies are increasingly using AI for their graphic designs.
Yeah. I upvoted WoodScientist because they are technically right. But in a real economy? There isn’t a significant enough of a demand for human creativity and so it plays out completely opposed to what they were saying.
Which makes me worried because our current type of AI can’t innovate, sure some future one could but it would be a completely different system and at present most companies seem content to simply throw ever more computing power into training our current fundementally flawed method. In the meantime Art may end up stagnating as human artists are driven out of commercial spaces and hobbyist artists are increasingly worried about getting scraped.
I’m curious about the data behind this statement. I can’t imagine that a company replacing artists with pure AI was ever actually hiring good artists in the first place. I’d think any company that’s ok with the quality coming straight from AI was paying for similar quality stuff from cheap “artists”. Any company that was willing to pay a premium for quality art won’t suddenly lower their standards because AI exists. Just my intuition and I’m genuinely curious to see if I’m wrong.
