Podcasts about Luddite

Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been called a “Luddite” and “anti-tech,” but the actor, filmmaker and entrepreneur insists he's actually dazzled by artificial intelligence. He just has qualms with the tech companies building it, and how they're compensating people for their work and data. On POLITICO Tech, host Steven Overly met up with Gordon-Levitt on the sidelines of an Aspen Digital event in Washington, D.C. to discuss AI's consequences for creatives, and what he wants from the tech industry and from policymakers. Steven Overly is the host of POLITICO Tech and covers the intersection of politics and technology. Nirmal Mulaikal is the co-host and producer of POLITICO Energy and producer of POLITICO Tech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Original Air Date: 2-20-2024 "Luddite" should never have become the epithet that it is as the Luddites were never afraid of or opposed to technological advancement, they only opposed the exploitation of workers and the degradation to society that came with the unfair distribution of the benefits of the targeted technology. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991, message us on the infamous Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01, or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes Check out our new show, SOLVED! on YouTube! BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Use our links to shop Bookshop.org and Libro.fm for a non-evil book and audiobook purchasing experience! Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: The New Luddites - SHIFT - Air Date 2-14-24 Ch. 2: Being a Luddite Is Good, Actually ft. Jathan Sadowski - Left Reckoning - Air Date 5-29-21 Ch. 3: Why this top AI guru thinks we might be in extinction-level trouble | The InnerView - TRT World - Air Date 1-22-24 Ch. 4: This is not good - jstoobs (TikTok) - Air Date 2-16-24 Ch. 5: The ACTUAL Danger of A.I. with Gary Marcus Part 1 - Factually! - Air Date 7-2-23 Ch. 6: The Left Luddites and the AI Accelerationists - torres - Air Date - 5-15-23 Ch. 7: Luddites Show Us The Politics Of Technology | Brian Merchant - The Majority Report - Air Date 11-21-23 Ch. 8: The ACTUAL Danger of A.I. with Gary Marcus Part 2 - Factually! - Air Date 7-2-23 Ch. 9: The anti-tech movement is back. - Alice Cappelle - Air Date 6-15-22 MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE:  Description: An 1812 block print of “The Leader of the Luddites” depicting a man in disheveled early 1800s clothing and missing one shoe leading other men up a hill while a building burns in the background.  Credit: “The Leader of the Luddites”, Messrs | Working Class Movement Library catalog | Public Domain Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow BotL: Bluesky | Mastodon | Threads | X Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

Les technocritiques ne sont pas très fans de l'intelligence artificielle. Cela leur a valu un méchant surnom de la part de leurs opposants : ils seraient des «luddites». «Luddite», c'est un mot qui est assez peu connu en France, mais il résonne très fort dans l'histoire anglo-saxonne. C'est quoi la révolte des luddites, et pourquoi ce terme est réutilisé deux siècles plus tard ?Dans cet épisode de Questions Tech, la journaliste Chloé Woitier vous explique d'où vient ce malicieux surnom donné aux technocritiques d'aujourd'hui. Et n'oubliez pas : dans la Tech, il n'y a pas de questions bêtes !Cet épisode a été initialement publié en février 2025. Vous pouvez retrouver Questions Tech sur Figaro Radio, le site du figaro.fr et sur toutes les plateformes d'écoute.Chronique et rédaction : Chloé WoitierMontage : Astrid LandonPrise de son & régie studio : Louis ChabainProduction exécutive : Aude Sérès, rédactrice en chef, pôle audio Le FigaroCoordination de production : Pôle audio Le FigaroCommunication : Réseaux sociaux Le FigaroVisuel & habillage : Studio design Le FigaroHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to Nottingham, where rebellion runs deep.  In this first part of our mini-series, we dive into the city's tangled history of politics and protest, from Nottingham Castle's royal showdowns to Luddite uprisings in Market Square, riots in St Ann's and the rise of justice in unexpected places.  We meet England's first black magistrate, explore the Galleries of Justice, and uncover how Nottingham helped spark the English Civil War.Visit our website yeoldeguide.com for details of all our episodes.  Don't forget to leave feedback.Send us a text

AI is coming for our jobs, the environment, and is even starting to stand-in for human creativity. Derek Allen, Sam Kirchner and Varvara Pavlova are part of the newly formed direct action group Stop AI, which is particularly concerned about the existential threat of Artificial General Intelligence and the potential for robots to outsmart humans, which Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, says is coming this year. Stop AI https://www.stopai.info/ 
"Lavender: The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza" (Yuval Abraham, +972 Magazine) https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Brian Merchant's book "Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech" covers the history of the Luddite movement https://sfpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S93C5986948 Support us and find links to our past episodes: patreon.com/sadfrancisco  

To hear the full episode, subscribe at patreon.com/TrueAnonPod ---------- We're joined by Jathan Sadowski to talk about his new book, The Mechanic and the Luddite: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-mechanic-and-the-luddite/paper We talk risk analysis, rentiers begetting more rentiers, things like this… My Friend the Terrorist screening 4/23 in NYC: https://www.maysles.org/calendar/my-friend-the-terrorist Discover more episodes at podcast.trueanon.com.

Worried that AI will replace you? It may not seem like the Hollywood writers' strike has anything in common with the Luddite rebellion in England in 1811, but they are surprisingly similar. Today we use the term “Luddite” dismissively to describe a technophobe, but the original Luddites – cloth workers – organized and fought Industrial Revolution automation and the factory bosses who were replacing humans with cotton spinning machines and steam powered looms. Find out what our age of AI can learn from textile workers of 200 years ago about keeping humans in the loop. Guest: Brian Merchant - Los Angeles Times tech columnist and author of “Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech”   Featuring music by Dewey Dellay and Jun Miyake Originally aired January 14, 2024 Big Picture Science is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com to inquire about advertising on Big Picture Science. You can get early access to ad-free versions of every episode by joining us on Patreon. Thanks for your support! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Worried that AI will replace you? It may not seem like the Hollywood writers' strike has anything in common with the Luddite rebellion in England in 1811, but they are surprisingly similar. Today we use the term “Luddite” dismissively to describe a technophobe, but the original Luddites – cloth workers – organized and fought Industrial Revolution automation and the factory bosses who were replacing humans with cotton spinning machines and steam powered looms. Find out what our age of AI can learn from textile workers of 200 years ago about keeping humans in the loop. Guest: Brian Merchant - Los Angeles Times tech columnist and author of “Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech”   Featuring music by Dewey Dellay and Jun Miyake Originally aired January 14, 2024 Big Picture Science is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Please contact advertising@airwavemedia.com to inquire about advertising on Big Picture Science. You can get early access to ad-free versions of every episode by joining us on Patreon. Thanks for your support! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of the Crazy Wisdom podcast, I, Stewart Alsop, sat down once again with Aaron Lowry for our third conversation, and it might be the most expansive yet. We touched on the cultural undercurrents of transhumanism, the fragile trust structures behind AI and digital infrastructure, and the potential of 3D printing with metals and geopolymers as a material path forward. Aaron shared insights from his hands-on restoration work, our shared fascination with Amish tech discernment, and how course-correcting digital dependencies can restore sovereignty. We also explored what it means to design for long-term human flourishing in a world dominated by misaligned incentives. For those interested in following Aaron's work, he's most active on Twitter at @Aaron_Lowry.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation!Timestamps00:00 – Stewart welcomes Aaron Lowry back for his third appearance. They open with reflections on cultural shifts post-COVID, the breakdown of trust in institutions, and a growing societal impulse toward individual sovereignty, free speech, and transparency.05:00 – The conversation moves into the changing political landscape, specifically how narratives around COVID, Trump, and transhumanism have shifted. Aaron introduces the idea that historical events are often misunderstood due to our tendency to segment time, referencing Dan Carlin's quote, “everything begins in the middle of something else.”10:00 – They discuss how people experience politics differently now due to the Internet's global discourse, and how Aaron avoids narrow political binaries in favor of structural and temporal nuance. They explore identity politics, the crumbling of party lines, and the erosion of traditional social anchors.15:00 – Shifting gears to technology, Aaron shares updates on 3D printing, especially the growing maturity of metal printing and geopolymers. He highlights how these innovations are transforming fields like automotive racing and aerospace, allowing for precise, heat-resistant, custom parts.20:00 – The focus turns to mechanical literacy and the contrast between abstract digital work and embodied craftsmanship. Stewart shares his current tension between abstract software projects (like automating podcast workflows with AI) and his curiosity about the Amish and Mennonite approach to technology.25:00 – Aaron introduces the idea of a cultural “core of integrated techne”—technologies that have been refined over time and aligned with human flourishing. He places Amish discernment on a spectrum between Luddite rejection and transhumanist acceleration, emphasizing the value of deliberate integration.30:00 – The discussion moves to AI again, particularly the concept of building local, private language models that can persistently learn about and serve their user without third-party oversight. Aaron outlines the need for trust, security, and stateful memory to make this vision work.35:00 – Stewart expresses frustration with the dominance of companies like Google and Facebook, and how owning the Jarvis-like personal assistant experience is critical. Aaron recommends options like GrapheneOS on a Pixel 7 and reflects on the difficulty of securing hardware at the chip level.40:00 – They explore software development and the problem of hidden dependencies. Aaron explains how digital systems rest on fragile, often invisible material infrastructure and how that fragility is echoed in the complexity of modern software stacks.45:00 – The concept of “always be reducing dependencies” is expanded. Aaron suggests the real goal is to reduce untrustworthy dependencies and recognize which are worth cultivating. Trust becomes the key variable in any resilient system, digital or material.50:00 – The final portion dives into incentives. They critique capitalism's tendency to exploit value rather than build aligned systems. Aaron distinguishes rivalrous games from infinite games and suggests the future depends on building systems that are anti-rivalrous—where ideas compete, not people.55:00 – They wrap up with reflections on course correction, spiritual orientation, and cultural reintegration. Stewart suggests titling the episode around infinite games, and Aaron shares where listeners can find him online.Key InsightsTranshumanism vs. Techne Integration: Aaron frames the modern moment as a tension between transhumanist enthusiasm and a more grounded relationship to technology, rooted in "techne"—practical wisdom accumulated over time. Rather than rejecting all new developments, he argues for a continuous course correction that aligns emerging technologies with deep human values like truth, goodness, and beauty. The Amish and Mennonite model of communal tech discernment stands out as a countercultural but wise approach—judging tools by their long-term effects on community, rather than novelty or entertainment.3D Printing as a Material Frontier: While most of the 3D printing world continues to refine filaments and plastic-based systems, Aaron highlights a more exciting trajectory in printed metals and geopolymers. These technologies are maturing rapidly and finding serious application in domains like Formula One, aerospace, and architectural experimentation. His conversations with others pursuing geopolymer 3D printing underscore a resurgence of interest in materially grounded innovation, not just digital abstraction.Digital Infrastructure is Physical: Aaron emphasizes a point often overlooked: that all digital systems rest on physical infrastructure—power grids, servers, cables, switches. These systems are often fragile and loaded with hidden dependencies. Recognizing the material base of digital life brings a greater sense of responsibility and stewardship, rather than treating the internet as some abstract, weightless realm. This shift in awareness invites a more embodied and ecological relationship with our tools.Local AI as a Trustworthy Companion: There's a compelling vision of a Jarvis-like local AI assistant that is fully private, secure, and persistent. For this to function, it must be disconnected from untrustworthy third-party cloud systems and trained on a personal, context-rich dataset. Aaron sees this as a path toward deeper digital agency: if we want machines that truly serve us, they need to know us intimately—but only in systems we control. Privacy, persistent memory, and alignment to personal values become the bedrock of such a system.Dependencies Shape Power and Trust: A recurring theme is the idea that every system—digital, mechanical, social—relies on a web of dependencies. Many of these are invisible until they fail. Aaron's mantra, “always be reducing dependencies,” isn't about total self-sufficiency but about cultivating trustworthy dependencies. The goal isn't zero dependence, which is impossible, but discerning which relationships are resilient, personal, and aligned with your values versus those that are extractive or opaque.Incentives Must Be Aligned with the Good: A core critique is that most digital services today—especially those driven by advertising—are fundamentally misaligned with human flourishing. They monetize attention and personal data, often steering users toward addiction or ...

Talking in-depth with author, publisher, and academic Udith Dematagoda, on his intellectual journey from post-punk bands to postwar literary writers, from international development contracts to pursing a PhD on Nabokov, from Scottish council estates to the specter of Marxist ghosts. A romantic, Udith shares his biography, the crossroads of class, diasporic experience, being driven not by ideology, but by aesthetic integrity. The son of a Sri Lankan political exile in Scotland, code-switching between posh-accented academia and the swear-punctuated slang of the personal, discovering reading as a lifeline from juvenile delinquency. On Agonist, his novel of post-internet disintegration, the imagination flooded by the digital hose. On the aesthetics of fascism, the dialectic between technology and masculinity, and the enduring value of Conrad. On the flattening tendencies of ideology and longing for transcendence. From literary engineering to integrity, on Neruda to Nabokov's politics. On cosmopolitism, hybridization, from Vienna to Tokyo and back to novel publishin. On transgression and techno-pessimism, the diabolic nature of AI….ExcerptsOn Artistic IntegrityI'm an extremely romantic and impractical person, right? Artistic integrity is probably the most important thing to me, I think, because, my, as I said, my ambitions are just very like, artistic, right?On Techo-Pessimism They just come from the depths of hell. The true face of this horrid, diabolical kind of thing….I'm a complete technological pessimist.I would describe myself as a sort of Luddite in the original sense, in the sense of I insist like the, just because one is you're able to do something. There's no sense. I think a lot of people. techno optimists are really motivated by hatred and raison du monde of human nature of creativity, of, everything that's human, right? And then this is a secret kind of motivation, but one that's really apparent to me…I think it's because the people that are driving these things really have a sort of fundamental  raison du monde towards something which they feel alienated by for whatever reason…On Agonist I was very frustrated about being on the internet and taking away from what I had to do.Artistically, intellectually, et cetera, wasting time on the internet…  And then I just decided I'm gonna write everything I see that's annoys me into this notebook. And I just filled that notebook up over a year. [Agnoist] is a fever dream of the internet, which tries to confront how people try to communicate and just are not able to, and what underlies this thing, this kind of collective text that we're all offering, whether we like it or not. And how diabolical it is.On Masculinity, Fascism, and Technology So this is the book I've been working on for six years now on masculinity, fascism, and technology. The general thesis of the book is that fascism is equally an aesthetic philosophy as it is in ideology. It's why it describes an ideological aesthetic.On International Development And this isn't a controversial position to say that, international development is just rear guard colonialism, that's all it is. It's just soft power for rear, for the type of colonialism, which no longer requires colonial administrators with boots on the ground.It just requires technical assistance and expertise and con consultants, et cetera. USAID in particular, when I worked within that world was absolutely known to be not even thinly disguised kind of front for the securities state, the projects that they funded, et cetera. That's not that was common knowledge. USAID was just front basically for the American State Department and also the CIA and NSA, et cetera.On Readership I'm happy that there's people that read my work and they enjoy it, and that's fine. I don't really need to have the validation of what, whatever it is. I don't know, like the sort of journalistic class or like the academic class or what, whatever it is, I don't really care.I'm not really that bothered by that. Honestly I would like that people read my work and that's fine, I think but attaining ambitions for me is setting it to accomplish something that I think is interesting artistically in getting as close to that as possible…AgonistHyperidean PressUdith Dematagoda Get full access to Leafbox at leafbox.substack.com/subscribe

Jon Summers is the Motoring Historian. He was a company car thrashing technology sales rep that turned into a fairly inept sports bike rider. On his show he gets together with various co-hosts to talk about new and old cars, driving, motorbikes, motor racing, motoring travel. In this episode, Jon reviews three vehicles, he discusses the Fiat 500e, highlighting its small size, aggressive regenerative braking, and plasticky interior, questioning its value considering depreciation. Next, he delves into the Dodge Durango Hellcat, lauding its 707 horsepower engine but critiquing its high price and overall build quality compared to competitors like Lexus and Genesis. Finally, he briefly evaluates the Acura ZDX, noting its competent performance but ultimately finding it unmemorable. Throughout, Jon shares anecdotes about technology glitches and driving experiences. ==================== Accept - Restless and Wild Fiat 500E - Perfectly adequate car. Luddite struggles getting it into gear. Nice evolution of the previous model. J would recommend one, but used. Let someone else suffer the depreciation hit of a new EV!!!! Over enthusiastic driver aids, the Acura ZDX a “500hp mother hen” Fiat overhears J's muttering, tries to help me Zodiac Mindwarp and the Love Reaction - Holy Gasoline Dodge Durango Hellcat vs. Genesis GV80. Durango Hellcat vs. Lexus GX550 AND Elantra N. That 707hp V8, J's Best Piece Of Technology. Center tach, like a 911 or a Gixxer. Durango Hellcat vs. Ram SRT-10, and aero limited top speed. Stable at high speed. But the news is the organic power delivery. Is the price even relevant, is this already a collector car? Acura ZDX - Low wide station wagon shape instead of Rivian style tall upright SUVs Zodiac Mindwarp - Airline Highway ===== (Oo---x---oO) ===== The Motoring Podcast Network : Years of racing, wrenching and Motorsports experience brings together a top notch collection of knowledge, stories and information. #everyonehasastory #gtmbreakfix - motoringpodcast.net More Information: https://www.motoringpodcast.net/ Become a VIP at: https://www.patreon.com/gtmotorsports Online Magazine: https://www.gtmotorsports.org/ Copyright Jon Summers, The Motoring Historian. This content is also available via jonsummers.net. This episode is part of the Motoring Podcast Network and has been republished with permission.

Send us a textWho knew that the breakthrough moment of AI sentience would come from interacting with an annoying neo-Luddite?After failing to raise a single dollar for PCI's newest initiative — the $350 billion Transdisciplinary Institute for Phalse Prophet Studies and Education (TIPPSE) —  Jason, Rob, and Asher devise the only profitable pitch for raising capital: using AI technology to cure the loneliness that technology itself causes. The only problem is that AI chatbots won't talk to us, as evidenced by Asher's experience of being blocked by an AI “friend.” So Asher turns to the flesh-and-blood author of Blood in the Machine, Brian Merchant, to discuss the rise of the neo-Luddite movement — the only people who might be able to stand your humble Crazy Town hosts. Brian Merchant is a writer, reporter, and author. He is currently reporter in residence at the AI Now Institute and publishes his own newsletter, Blood in the Machine, which has the same title as his 2023 book. Previously, Brian was the technology columnist at the Los Angeles Times and a senior editor at Motherboard.Originally recorded on 1/3/25 (warm-up conversation) and 3/24/25 (interview with Brian).Warning: This podcast occasionally uses spicy language.Sources/Links/Notes:Press Release announcing closure of TIPPSEFunding for FriendScreenshot of Asher's conversation with Friend's bot, FaithLyrics to “Not Going to Mars” by PyrrhonBrian Merchant's Substack, Blood in the MachineBrian's book, Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech  New York Times article on the Luddite Club: “‘Luddite' Teens Don't Want Your Likes”Crazy Town Episode 72: Sucking CO2 and Electrifying Everything: The Climate Movement's Desperate Dependence on Tenuous TechnologiesBrian's essay in The Atlantic, “The New Luddites Aren't Backing Down”Support the show

On this episode, we sit down with Jathan Sadowski from the podcast This Machine Kills to discuss his latest book, Mechanic and the Luddite: A Ruthless Criticism of Technology and Capitalism. We explore data capitalism, the impact of AI on labor and decision-making, rentierism, and whether Europe should join the tech hype cycle—as so many of its leaders seem eager to do.

In this week's podcast, Pastor Mike Moses informs us of what a Luddite is, how we can ensure we living a life pleasing to God and how we can be filled with the Spirit and not give room for drunkeness.

Watch this episode here.

Our artificial intelligence miniseries returns with a guest spot by This Machine Kills cohost, Jathan Sadowski, about his brand new second book The Mechanic and the Luddite: a Ruthless Criticism of Technology and Capitalism.For the full episode support the show at http://patreon.com/theantifadaSong: Manuel Göttsching - E2 - E4

In this episode of NeedleXChange I interview CARO.CARO is a multidisciplinary artist who intertwines metalwork and embroidery to explore themes of time, devotion, and material storytelling.In this first part of our conversation, CARO shares her journey - from early explorations in jewellery-making to discovering the expressive potential of embroidery. We discuss the contrasts between working in metal and textiles, the influence of haute couture techniques, and the patience required to craft deeply detailed pieces.CARO's work explores themes of craft, devotion, and the intersection of tradition and modernity, using intricate materials to challenge the boundaries between art, labour, and storytelling. If that sparks your interest, be sure to check out episodes 71 and 72 with Betsy Greer - they're right up your alley.Timestamps: 00:00:00 – Introduction00:02:58 – Exploring the intersection of metalwork and embroidery00:06:02 – Balancing creativity with time constraints00:08:53 – The journey from jewellery to embroidery00:17:48 – The science behind metalwork and embroidery00:21:04 – A historical perspective on female creativity00:32:35 – Gender dynamics in needlework00:39:28 – The impact of capitalism on women's work00:41:25 – The Luddite movement and mechanisationLinks:Instagram: caro__caro__caro__Intro music is 222 by Sarah, the Illstrumentalist via Epidemic Sound.About NeedleXChange:NeedleXChange is a conversation podcast with embroidery and textile artists, exploring their process and practice.Hosted by Jamie "Mr X Stitch" Chalmers, it is an in-depth showcase of the best needlework artists on the planet.Visit the NeedleXChange website: https://www.needl.exchange/Sign up for the NeedleXChange Newsletter here: https://bit.ly/NeedleXChangeNewsIf you want embroidery inspiration and regular doses of textile art, visit the Mr X Stitch site here: https://www.mrxstitch.comAnd follow Mr X Stitch on all the usual social media channels!Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MrXStitchTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/MrXStitchInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/MrXStitchPinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/mrxstitch/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mrjamiechalmers Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Charles is fascinated by a lot of things in today's episode, including the AI language 'Gibberlink', techno-fascism, Cybertrucks, and becoming a luddite. Dom plays the role of a good friend who is willing to let Charles talk about his interests, all while being skeptical of the topic's ability to last the length of the podcast.Watch OPTICS on ABC iview here:https://iview.abc.net.au/show/opticsCheck out more Chaser headlines here:https://www.instagram.com/chaserwar/?hl=enEnter the raffle to have Elon's kid here:https://chaser.com.au/support/ You can lose the ads and get more content! Become a Chaser Report VIP member at http://apple.co/thechaser OR https://plus.acast.com/s/the-chaser-report. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Specific rules and a general approach for managing your relationship with technology -- battle hardened by over 20 years of practice. 

This week, TechStuff teams up with Part-Time Genius for a special crossover episode. Oz and Mangesh Hattikudur, host of Part-Time Genius, discuss a largely misunderstood group of machine destroyers. The Luddites. Joining them is tech journalist Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine, to dig into the history of humans fighting against job automation, why we equate Luddites with technophobes and what we can learn from these 19th century rebels in the age of AI.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Why should our next generation of farmers – and just about everyone who eats – care about the Farm Bill? Celize Christy, an Organizer at HEAL Food Alliance explains the basic details on what's in the legislation, how it gets written, and how it impacts you. Then, Young Farmers' Policy Campaigns Co-Director Vanessa Garcia Polanco lays out the path forward in terms of the most important issues this time around. And we talk to farmers KD Randall and Matt Hollenbeck about what they need from their policymakers in D.C. Celize Christy, Organizer, HEAL Food AllianceAs an Organizer at HEAL Food Alliance, Celize facilitates connections among members, campaigns, and programs building collective power through HEAL's multi-sector, multi-racial coalition. Celize comes to HEAL's campaign and policy work by coordinating farmer-led education programming, advocating for BIPOC farmers in Iowa, and coalition building and organizing with sustainable agriculture organizations. At HEAL, Celize isn't just an organizer; she's a passionate agent of change, weaving connections and networks that celebrate the multifaceted voices of our food and farm systems. Read her full bio.Vanessa Garcí­a Polanco, Policy Campaigns Co-Director, National Young Farmers CoalitionVanessa García Polanco co-designs the strategy and implementation of Young Farmers' policy campaigns, ensuring we are pursuing and advocating for equity-driven, farmer-centric research, policy, and programmatic interventions. She serves as the organizational council member and co-chair of the Farming Opportunities & Fair Competition Committee of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. She has previously worked with Food Solutions New England, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems, University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension, and the Executive Office of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. She is an alumna of Michigan State University and the University of Rhode Island. She is a James Beard Foundation Scholar, AFHVS Innovation Leader, and an Emerging Leader in Food and Agriculture. As an Afro-Dominican immigrant, she brings her experiences and identities to her policy and advocacy activities.KD Randall, Farmer, Home Grown Farm + Young Farmers Land FellowKD is a returning generation farmer who developed a deep appreciation for the land and the ways that it constantly care for us. Inspired by the stories of their family, KD decided to pursue a career in agriculture, determined to contribute to the legacy and sustainability of southern rural agriculture. Recently, KD's work has focused on healing and fostering remembrance, reconnection, and growth in all of the places they call home, grounding in their southern rural agrarian roots. This passion has inspired them to create Home Grown Farms, a small rural farm that is still blooming into its first form. A component of KD's long-term vision is to explore ways to offer a diversity of wellness experiences through food, recreation, and spiritual services.Follow KD @farmerinthekells.Matt Hollenbeck, Hollenbeck's Cider Mill + Young Farmers Land FellowMatt Hollenbeck lives and farms in Virgil, NY, and is the 4th generation steward of Hollenbeck's Cider Mill. He has been a factory worker, cubicle jockey, geologist, outdoor adventure guide, worked on a small organic CSA farm, a butcher shop, and many other varied jobs before settling into continuing his family's 90+-year-old ag processing business. He's a first-generation orchardist with impostor syndrome, a staunch and vocal advocate for rural issues, smallholder agriculture, and appropriate technology. Matt is also a firm believer that family is the most important part of a family business. And a Luddite to boot! Check out HEAL Food Alliance's farm bill priorities here.Learn more about Hollenbeck's Cider Mill here.Follow KD Randle @farmerinthekellsLearn more about the USDA's EQIP program here, and the NRCS program here.The Farm Report is hosted by Leigh Ollman and Alita Kelly, produced by Leigh Ollman, Evan Flom and H Conley, and edited by Hannah Beal and H Conley. Audio engineering is by Armen Spendjian and H Conley. Music in the original episode is by Breakmaster Cylinder and JangwaLearn more about the National Young Farmers Coalition here and consider becoming a member. Click here to take action on the farm bill and other important policy issues. The Farm Report was originally air by HRN and is Powered by Simplecast.

Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 750-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ Subscribe to One Nation, Indivisible with Andrew Seidel:  Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/one-nation-indivisible-with-andrew-seidel/id1791471198 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0w5Lb2ImPFPS1NWMG0DLrQ Brad is joined by author Brian Merchant to discuss his book, 'Blood in the Machine.' They explore how the historical Luddite movement in 19th century England provides critical insights into the current AI revolution and its impact on labor and society. Merchant draws parallels between past and present technological upheavals, examining how AI is being used today to automate labor, displace workers, and erode job quality. They also reflect on cultural works like Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein,' highlighting its relevance to modern concerns about technology. Through their conversation, they examine the role of technology in shaping human life and society, and what it means to resist dehumanizing technological developments. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163 Check out BetterHelp and use my code SWA for a great deal: www.betterhelp.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The other day I went to check in on my 10-year-old during her screentime. She was playing Goat Simulator on her Switch. She was also watching Gravity Falls on her iPad. Other times she just watches people play video games. I get it. It's my role, to not understand my kids' media habits. And, as a parent, it's also my job to worry about my kids' screentime. Maybe you don't worry. Maybe you're at one end of the spectrum or the other – like either have at it, kids! Or you set limits with the iron fist of nurturing boundaries. But most of us, I think, can't help but worry about what it does to their attention spans to be streaming TV while playing a video game. My 10-year-old does have limits on screens. For my teenager, the limits eroded over the years. I really don't know how much to worry about it. I want them to get outside, talk to real people, look at the sky, touch trees, experience the wonder and boredom of the analog world. But I'm not trying to be a Luddite. Maybe I've never been that into video games, but I realize they can offer rich, complex narrative experiences. And, you know, fun. I hear people like that, too.There might even be things that video games offer that are just too hard to access in the contemporary world otherwise. I don't know, the adrenaline rush of being chased by a wild boar. Quests to find treasure, even if in reality it was about potable water rather than a chest of gold. Or to prove yourself to a community. I'm trying to acknowledge the value of video games, but clearly I'm still a little skeptical about their importance for humanity. And yes, I do realize I'm saying all this on a podcast. Side note, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “podcast” first appeared in English in 2004. Decades after video games. I just want my kids to spend more time outside.Anyway. In the midst of all this, I heard about someone who's working on video games to support girls. That's great. And she's also working on video games for another group that hasn't traditionally had games made for them.In the video for her company, Parrot Concepts, she hesitates before saying what they're trying to solve is a…problem. But she goes ahead and says it. And defends it. By the end of our conversation, I was ready to agree. There's a real problem, and video games for parrots are going to help.CreditsInner States is produced and edited by me, Alex Chambers. Our associate producer is Dom Heyob. Our master of social media is Jillian Blackburn. Our intern is Karl Templeton. We get support from Eoban Binder, Natalie Ingalls, LuAnn Johnson, Sam Schemenauer, Payton Whaley, Lisa Robbin Young and Kayte Young. Our Executive Producer is Eric Bolstridge.Our theme song is by Amy Oelsner and Justin Vollmar. We have additional music from the artists at Universal Production Music.I also want to give a shoutout to Lydia Norton and Betsy Leija. Their interview with Patricia on the IU Media School's I'm No Expert podcast is how I found out about her love of parrots and parrot games.

My 2023 book, The Conservative Futurist, is based on the idea that we, as a society, are failing to meet our potential: Inefficiency, overregulation, and an overabundance of caution is robbing us of the world we might be living in.Nicole Kobie shares some of my frustrations in her recent book, The Long History of the Future: Why tomorrow's technology still isn't here. She explores the evolutionary history of past technologies and why we just can't seem to arrive at the future we've all been waiting for.Today on Faster, Please — The Podcast, I chat with Kobie about the role of regulators, the pace of progress, and what careers in journalism have taught us about innovation hypeKobie is a science and technology journalist whose articles appear in publications fromTeen Vogue, toNew Scientist, toGQ. She is the futures editor forPC Pro and a contributing editor forWired. She is based out of London.In This Episode* Repeating history (1:42)* The American system of innovation (7:12)* The cost of risk-aversion (16:10)* The problem dynamic (20:28)* Our future rate of change (23:34)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Repeating history (1:42)I'm supposed to forget that I basically wrote the same version of this story a year ago . . .Pethokoukis: I wrote a book about a year ago, and I wrote that book out of frustration. I was frustrated, when I originally started writing it in 2020, that, how come we already didn't have a vaccine for Covid? And then I started thinking about all the other technologies that we didn't have, and it was that frustration that led me write my book.I'm guessing there was a frustration that led you to write your much better-written book.Kobie: So I think it's really interesting that you start with Covid vaccines because here, out in the UK, the vaccine that was developed here — this is not something of my area of expertise, but obviously all journalists ended up having to write about Covid quite a bit — but the reason we managed to create a vaccine so quickly (they usually take several years) is because we have this vaccine platform that they'd been coming up with, and they kind of had this virus in their heads of, “Oh, it would probably be this type of a virus, and if we were to design a system that would help us design a vaccine really quickly, what would it look like?” And they had it mostly done when everything hit, so actually we got quite lucky on that one. It could have been a lot worse, we could have been much further behind.But you're right, I have been writing about technology for a very long time and I keep hearing things about AI, things about driverless cars, and you just feel like you're writing the same headline time after time after time because news has such a short memory. I'm supposed to forget that I basically wrote the same version of this story a year ago, and that every year I'm writing about driverless cars and how they're going to be here imminently, and then 10 years goes by and I'm like, “Maybe I should have renewed my license.” That sort of a thing. And I find that very frustrating because I don't like hype. I like having the reality of the situation, even if it's a bit pessimistic, even if it's not the most happy scenario of what could happen with technology. I'd rather know the downsides and have a better sense of what is actually going to happen. So it really came out of that.I was writing a section for a British computing magazine called PC Pro, a future section, and it's a very cynical magazine a lot of the time, so I kind of got used to writing why things weren't going to happen and I had this whole list of these different technologies that I'm not necessarily pessimistic about, but I could see why they weren't going to happen as quickly as everyone has said. So just put it together in a book. So a little bit the same as you, but bit of a different story.So that phenomenon, and I wonder, is it partly sort of a reporter's problem? Because most reporters you have a certain . . . you don't want to write the same story over and over again. I think a lot of reporters have a soft spot for novelty. I think that's not just true with technology, I think it's with economic theories, it's with a lot of things. Then you have the founders or technologists themselves, many of whom probably would like to raise money and to continue raising money, so they're going to hype it, but yet, history would suggest that there's nothing new about this phenomenon, that things always take longer to get from the breakthrough to where it is a ubiquitous technology, everything from electrification, to PCs, to the internal combustion engine.Is there an actual problem or is it really a problem of our perceptions?I think it is a problem of perception. We have this idea that technology happens so quickly, that development happens so quickly, and it does, especially something like a smartphone. It went from being something you heard about to something you carried with you in a matter of years — very, very quickly. Of course, the technologies that make up a smartphone took many, many, several decades, a long, long time.The problem with a lot of innovation and development, especially when it's things like things like AI, they start as almost a philosophical, academic idea. Then they become science and we start to work out the science of how something's going to work. And then you have to engineer it and make it work physically. And then you have to commercialize it. And for every single different aspect of a technology, that's what you're kind of doing. That is a very long road involving very different people. And the academics are like, “Yeah, we solved this. I wrote a paper about this ages ago, a hundred years ago we were talking about AI.” And then the scientists who are doing stuff in the lab, they can make it work in the lab, they can make it work in theory, they can do that in-the-lab bit, and that's amazing. We read about those breakthroughs. Those are the kinds of things that make really great headlines and journalists love those kinds of stories because, hey, it's new. And then you've got engineers who've actually got to physically build it, and that is where the money really needs to come in because this is always harder. Building anything is harder than you think it's going to be. It doesn't matter what it is, it's always harder because you've got the real world, you're out of the lab and you have to think about all of the things that the scientists who were very smart people did not think about.And then you've got to try to come up with a way to make it work for people, and people are hard. You need to think about regulators, you need to think about business models, and all of that sort of thing. There's a lot of problems in all of that, and a lot of the time, the innovation isn't about that original academic idea. It's about how you're going to bring it to market, or how you're going to make it safe, and all of those kinds of things. There's so much to think about with even the smallest piece of technology.The American system of innovation (7:12)It's too easy for people to just kind of jump up and say, “Well, it's corporations being evil. That's the problem.” Well sometimes, yeah. “It's governments being too heavy-handed and regulators being too tight. That's the problem.” Well, it is until your plane crashes, then you definitely wish that those aviation regulators were stricter, right?I'm old enough to remember in the 1990s, I remember writing stories when I was a reporter about AI. There was a huge AI boom in the 1990s which then kind of fizzled out, and then it sort of came up again. So I've certainly heard about the hype about technologies, and when people talk about hype, often they'll point out the Internet Boom — but to me, that's, again, really just a case of things taking longer than what people expected because all the big moneymaking ideas in the 2010s about how to use the internet and apps — these are not new ideas. These are all ideas people had in the '90s, but what they lacked was bandwidth to make them work out, and we also lacked the smartphones, but the idea of ordering things online or the sharing economy, the technology wasn't there.Sometimes the problem is that the technology just isn't there yet. Is there an actual problem — you're in Great Britain — is there a problem with the American system of innovation, which, the stylized version of that would be: government funds lots of basic research on the kinds of questions that businesses would never really do their own — even though they do a lot of R&D, they don't do that kind of R&D because it's not immediately commercial — and that creates this stock of knowledge that then businesses can use to commercialize, see what people will actually buy as a way of valuing it., does it pass the market test, and then we end up with stuff that businesses and consumers can use — that, ideally, is the American system.Is that a good system? Can that system be improved? What is your contention?It depends what you're making. If you're making a consumer product, I think yeah, that works decently well. You can see in some ways where it doesn't work, and you can see in some ways where it does work, and to me that's where regulation and the government needs to sit, is to try to push things the right way. Obviously, social media probably needed something helping it along the way at some point so it didn't go down the road that we have now. Smartphones are pretty good, they're a pretty great technology, we're used to using them, there's some issues with surveillance and that sort of thing, but that kind of worked pretty well.But it depends on the technology. Like I mentioned, these Covid vaccines. Here in the UK, that wasn't a project that was funded by corporations. It definitely got out in the world and was mass-produced by them quickly, which was great, but it was something that came through the academic world here and there was a lot of government funding involved. Of course, the UK has a very strong academic system, and an academic network, and how you get funding for these things.It depends on the product, it depends what you're trying to buy, and this is the issue when you come into things like transport: so driverless cars, or goofy ideas like hyperloop, or flying taxis and things like that. Is that a consumer product? Is that public transport? How are we deciding what the value is in this? Is it just about how much money it makes for Google, or is it about how it solves problems for cities? And we probably need it to do both, and walking that line to make sure that it does both in a way that works for everybody is very difficult, and I don't think we have easy answers for any of that, partially some of this stuff is so new and partially because we're not very good at talking about these things.It's too easy for people to just kind of jump up and say, “Well, it's corporations being evil. That's the problem.” Well sometimes, yeah. “It's governments being too heavy-handed and regulators being too tight. That's the problem.” Well, it is until your plane crashes, then you definitely wish that those aviation regulators were stricter, right? So it depends on what the technology is, and we just use technology to cover such a range of innovation that maybe we need some different ways of talking about this.Flying cars has become such the example, but the reason there isn't a flying car, some might blame regulation, but I think, whether it's regulations were too heavy for some reason, or the technology wasn't there, it didn't make economic sense. And even though there's been a lot of flying taxi startups, it still may not make economic sense. So who determines if it makes economic sense? Does the government determine or do you need to raise money and then try out a product, then the entrepreneur realizes it doesn't make economic sense, and then the company collapses?To me, that's what I see as the American system, that somebody has an idea, maybe they base the idea off research, and then they try the idea, and they raise money, and then they actually try to create a product, and then the thing fails, and, well, now we know. Now we know that's probably not ready.Is there a different way of doing it? What country does it better?I think China does, and I think that's because companies in China and the government are much more linked, and they serve each other. That's not necessarily a good thing, to be clear, especially not for the wider world, all of the time, but China has driverless cars and they're out on the roads. It's not that they work better than the ones in the US, they don't, but there's less of a concern about some of the negative impacts. Where you fall on where that sits, that's kind of up to individuals. Personally, I think a driverless car shouldn't be on the road if it's not perfectly safe, if it's not a really trusted technology, and I am willing to wait for that because I think it is a thing that is worth waiting for, or ensuring that we can actually build it in a way that's affordable. But they're out on the roads in China, they're being tested, you can catch a robot taxi there.But that should be a worse system because it sounds like you're very skeptical about how safe they are. The fact that they're only on the roads in this country in certain places, in certain cities, there's a slow rollout — that should be a better system.Personally, I think it is. Now, if you live in San Francisco or you live in the places that are kind of being treated as test labs for these vehicles, you might not be a fan of them, and there's been a lot of pushback in San Francisco around this, especially because it's taken so long and they can actually be quite disruptive to the cities when they don't work out, and it's not like you, as somebody who lives locally, gets compensated because you get delayed on your way to work because a Waymo car got on the way of your bus, or whatever.But I think that we do need to be slower with technology, and I think that there's nothing wrong with taking a bit of time to make sure that we get it right. It is very likely that, in the next couple of years, there are going to be cities that have these air taxis. To a certain extent, they're just electric helicopters that are cheaper and easier to fly, and we already have those to get people above traffic to get between places. That's an idea that already exists. This isn't a huge, massive leap forward. It is going to happen in cities where people are a little bit less afraid of disrupting everybody. But again, I'm not sure that that's right for people. That might be right for the company; so all of the various aviation companies that are trying this, they're going to end up flying for the first time in cities like Dubai and places like that that aren't worried about what everyday people on the ground think, they don't really care what you think. A place like New York or LA, it's going to be a little bit tougher to convince people that they should have to suffer the safety implications of this if one of these things crashes, because people in the US have a really great ability to be able to speak out about these technologies, and better government regulations, and things like that.I think it is a very tough question and I think it is almost impossible to get it perfectly, so the question is more about getting it to be good enough, and to me, what I think that requires is good communication between companies and regulators. And in aviation, that is pretty good— you will not talk to any company that is making the so-called “flying cars” and the air taxis. They all go on about how well they work with regulators and how much they appreciate the support of regulators, and I think that's a good thing, but regulators are probably also maybe not making it as easy as it could be to develop a new technology because one of the problems with these companies is that it takes a certain length of time to come up with this idea and how the technology is going to work, and then you have to get all these different certifications, and it is a long road — and this is good, you want to make sure the plane works, but by the time you're certified, the technology has come along enough that now you're out-of-date and your technology is out-of-date, so you want to drop a new piece of technology, a new battery, a new idea, AI, and whatever. To a certain extent you have to come back to the beginning, and now you're behind again, and by the time you get everything certified, that's out-of-date again. So we probably do need to come up with faster ways of looking at new technologies and finding new ways of letting these companies safely work in a new technology into an existing design, new things like that.The cost of risk-aversion (16:10)I don't want to talk about this really wide-ranging AI stuff. I want really specifics now, now that we're starting to apply this stuff and we have really specific AI models that work in a very specific way, let's talk about that. Isn't that kind of the big story, that the reason we don't have some of these technologies is because we've been — at least in the United States — we've been wildly risk-averse. That's the whole story of nuclear energy: We became very risk-averse, and now we're sitting here worried about climate change when we have an established technology that, had we not paused it, we would've had 50 years of improvements, and when we talk about small nuclear reactors, or microreactors, or even fusion, we're 50 years behind where we could be. So don't some of these tech folks have a point that there was a proper reaction in the '50s and '60s about regulation and the environment and then we had an overreaction, now it's become just very hard to build things in this country and get them deployed, whether it's flying taxis or nuclear reactors. Now we're going to have this debate about AI. Does does that sound logical to you?I'm not sure that that is always what is holding these things back. The thing that has been holding AI back is just processing power. Jeffrey Hinton was working on all of these ideas in the '90s, and he couldn't make it work because the technology wasn't there, and it has taken us this long to get to a point where maybe some of these systems are starting to do useful things. And it is being deployed, it is being used and we should do that.But some people don't want it deployed, they would like to pause it. You've described this ideal that we've been developing this, and the technology's not there yet, it repeatedly took longer than what people expected, I think you correctly know. And now we're at the point where it seems to maybe be there, and now the second it's there, they're like, “Stop it. Let's slow down.” That's sort of the exact problem you've identified.Yeah, I do think it is fair to be concerned about the impact of this huge technology. When the whole internet thing happened, we probably should have been slightly more afraid of it and slightly more careful, but you can kind of solve a lot of problems along the way and kind of, “Oh, okay, we need to think about safety of children online — probably should have thought of that a little bit sooner,” and things like that. There's problems that you can kind of solve as you go along, but I think the biggest problem with the discussion and the debate around AI now is we're talking about this huge range of technology. AI is not one thing. So when you say, “AI is here now,” well, AI has been here for decades, it's been doing things for decades, it's not new, but we're talking about a very specific type of AI, we're talking about generative AI that is run by large language models.Personally, I have absolutely no problem with a large language model generating an AI response to an email so I can just hit a button and say, “Yeah, thanks, that sounds good” without having to type it all out. No one is scared of that. Lots of people are concerned about if you start rolling this out in government widely, which is what the UK government is planning at the moment, and you're letting AI make decisions and reply to people. You're going to get some problems, you're going to get people getting letters from their doctor that are incorrect, or people getting turned down for benefits, and things like that when they should be getting those benefits.That doesn't mean we can't use AI, it just means we need to think about what are all the downsides. What are the ways that we can mitigate those downsides? What are the ways we can mitigate those risks? But if you ask anyone at an AI developing company now, “Well, how are we going to fix this?” They're like, “Oh, the AI will do it.” Well, how? I just want to specific answer. How are you going to use the AI? What's it actually going to do? What problems do you see and how are you going to fix those problems? Very specific. I don't want to talk about this really wide-ranging AI stuff. I want really specifics now, now that we're starting to apply this stuff and we have really specific AI models that work in a very specific way, let's talk about that. And I think people are capable of having that conversation, but we just really gloss over the details with this one a lot.The problem dynamic (20:28)We need more nuance, really, and realize that there aren't villains, this isn't us versus them, it doesn't need to be like this.So do you view as sort of the problem players here, are they regulators, are they technologists, are they entrepreneurs? Is it the public — which, again, has a very poor understanding of technology, what technology can do. A lot of people I know, when they first tried ChatGPT, they were a little disappointed because they figured, after watching all these sci-fi movies, “I thought computers were already supposed to be able to do this.”I don't want to say who are the villains, but who are the problem players and what do you do about it?I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I think that framing is the problem.Good, that's fine, attack my framing, that is totally permitted!I think all of this would be better if we didn't have an “us versus them” thing. I think it's great that OpenAI is trying to develop this technology and is trying to make it useful and to make it work in a way that we might benefit from it. That's what they say they're trying to do, they're trying to make a lot of money while doing it. That's great. That's how this all works. That's fine. Regulators are keeping a close eye on it and want more information from them, and they want to know more about what they're doing, and what they're planning, and how these things are going to work. That seems fair. That's not OpenAI battling regulators, that's not regulators slapping down OpenAI.Journalists have a lot of blame on this because of the way we frame things. Everything is a battle. Everything is people going head-to-head — no, this is how this is supposed to work. Regulators are supposed to keep them in check. That can be very difficult when you are trying to regulate a very, very new technology. How could you possibly know anything about it? Where are you going to get your information from? From the company themselves. That kind of brings in some inherent challenges, but I think that's all surmountable.It's kind of like this idea that you're either a Luddite, and you hate AI, and you think it's evil, or you're completely pro-AI and you just can't wait to have your brain uploaded — there's a lot of nuance and variety of what people actually think in between. I think what you mentioned about ChatGPT and how, when you go use it the first time, you're kind of like, “Huh, this is it, hey?”I think that is the number one thing: Everyone should go use it, and then you're going to be half impressed that this machine is talking to you, that this system can actually chat with you, but then also a little bit disappointed because it's making things up, it's incorrect, it's a bit silly sometimes, that sort of a thing. Personally, I look at it and I just go, I wouldn't trust my business to this. I wouldn't trust the running of a government to a system that operates like this.Could it write some letters to help the NHS out here not have to have a person sit and type all of these things out, or to send more personalized letters to people so they get better information, and things like that? Yeah, that sounds good. Is that going to completely change how government operates? No. So we need to be a bit more honest about the limitations. We need more nuance, really, and realize that there aren't villains, this isn't us versus them, it doesn't need to be like this. But I see why you think there's villains.Our future rate of change (23:34)I think we're really bad at tracking change mentally. We want to see a big, dramatic change and then we look back and we're like, “Whoa . . . This is all very different.”That was just more my provocative framing. This is a question that you may not like at all, but I'm still going to ask it: You've looked at all these technologies. Do you think that the world of 2035 will look significantly different? The difference between the world of 2025 versus 2015, whatever that change has been, do you anticipate a bigger change between 2025 and 2035, whether because of energy, AI, rockets, flying cars, CRISPR. . . ?I think it will be different, but I don't think it's going to be as different. I'm kind of thinking back to when I was a kid and how we all lived life pre-internet and things like that, and things were genuinely different, and that gap between that and now is such a big difference. I think about my kid, when she's an adult, how different is it going to be? I think it's going to be different. I think we're going to look back at conversations like this and be like, “Oh gosh, we were naive. How could we have thought this, or not thought this?”Do I think that no one is going to be working because AI is going to do all work? No, I don't think it's going to be capable of that. Do I think that things like medicine could be really changed by technologies like CRISPR? I really hope so. I think we spend a lot of time talking about things like AI without seeing some of the really big-picture stuff. I write a lot of business technology stories, and it's a lot about how we can improve productivity by a few points, or it might impact a few thousand jobs — let's talk about some bigger things. Let's talk about how we can really change life. Let's talk about how we could work less. I would love to be able to see people actually working three or four days a week instead of these five-day weeks and still maintain productivity and still maintain salaries. I love that idea. I don't think that's going to happen. I think the changes are going to be small and incremental ones.I think we'll have a lot better transport options. I think all this driverless technology, even if we don't end up with the driverless cars that we fantasize about, it's definitely going to get applied to public transportation in some really good ways. I'm hoping that medicine will change. I'm worried about the climate change side of it because we are not putting our technology and our innovation into that, the mitigations for that, and I really think that that's where we need some very creative thinking for how we're going to deal with all of this.So 10, 15, 20 years from now, I think life is going to be relatively the same, but I think in certain industries it's going to be really, really different — but I think I'm still going to be working five days a week sitting in front of a computer, more often than not.That's because we're grinders, we love to grind.I don't, I do not, no.My last question, I'm not sure if this is quoted in the book, I think it was a Bill Gates quote, “We overestimate what we can accomplish in two years,” or “We underestimate what we can accomplish in 10 years,” something like that. Is that sort of the phenomenon, that there's an announcement and we figure everything's going to be different in 10 years, and then it isn't, and then we look back in 10 years, we're like, “Whoa, actually, there has been a lot of change!”I think we're really bad at tracking change mentally. We want to see a big, dramatic change and then we look back and we're like, “Whoa,” like you say, “What happened? This is all very different.”I think we're so focused on the here and now all of the time, we're so thinking about what's going to happen in the next quarter for our company or within the next year with our family, or our careers and things like that, that it's very easy for us to just get caught up in the day-to-day, and I think it is a good thing to look back. That's one of the reasons I wanted to write my book as a history. If you look back, we were talking about flying cars in the '50s, we were talking about AI . . . the mid-'50s is when this idea kind of really came to life. It takes a long time, but also we've done a lot in that time. There's been a huge amount of change and a huge amount of technologies that have started to enable all of this, and all of that is really positive.I can get accused of being a bit of a cynic because I'm like, “Where are driverless cars?” But if we manage to make driverless cars happen by 2035, I don't think that that's bad that it took that long. That's just how long it took — and hey, now we have driverless cars. Creating technology is sometimes just going to take longer than we want it to, and that's okay. That's not that the technology is wrong, that's just that we're bad at predicting timelines. I never know how long it's going to take me to finish a story, or get ready in the morning or, whatever, so I'm not surprised that these world-changing technologies were bad judges of that, too.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Trump's Arrival Brightens U.S. Outlook, Darkens Everyone Else's - WSJ* Coup d'États, Institutional Change, and Productivity - SSRN* I, Google: Estimating the Impact of Corporate Involvement on AI Research - SSRN▶ Business* How Chinese A.I. Start-Up DeepSeek Is Competing With Silicon Valley Giants - NYT* OpenAI's Stargate Deal Heralds Shift Away From Microsoft - WSJ* Oracle Takes Run at Cloud's Big Three With Trump-Backed AI Pact - Bberg* Remote work matters, but culture is the elephant in the room - CEPR* Why Mark Zuckerberg Is Ditching Human Fact-Checkers - Wired* OpenAI spars with Elon Musk over $500bn Stargate project - FT* How Oracle Plays Cheaply in AI - WSJ▶ Policy/Politics* Who Is Russell Vought? Probably the Most Important Person in Trump 2.0. - NYT Opinion* Bannon berates Musk over his attacks on Trump's AI infrastructure project - Politico▶ AI/Digital* When A.I. Passes This Test, Look Out - NYT* Anthropic chief says AI could surpass “almost all humans at almost everything” shortly after 2027 - Ars* Elon Musk's Silence on AI Risks Is Deafening - Bberg Opinion* Worry About Sentient AI—Not for the Reasons You Think - IEEE* There can be no winners in a US-China AI arms race - MIT▶ Biotech/Health* Sam Altman-backed Retro Biosciences to raise $1bn for project to extend human life - FT* Scientists Complete First Comprehensive Map of Human DNA Recombination - The Debrief▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Private companies aim to demonstrate working fusion reactors in 2025 - Science* How Trump's executive orders could tilt US energy markets - E&E News* Trump's Dream of Energy Dominance Relies on Canada - Bberg Opinion* The Wind Industry Is Putting on a Brave Face - Heatmap▶ Space/Transportation* Beam me to the stars: Scientists propose wild new interstellar travel tech - Space* The Hyperloop: A 200-Year History of Hype and Failure - MIT Press▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* What Los Angeles Can Learn From Another Great American City That Burned - NYT Opinion▶ Substacks/Newsletters* What if AI timelines are too aggressive? - Understanding AI* Trump's executive orders: Five big takeaways - Noahpinion* Open-Source AI and the Future - Hyperdimensional* 'ChatGPT' Robotics Moment in 2025 - AI Supremacy* The Big Problem Paradox - Conversable EconomistFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Christmas comes but once a year, but Fishmas lasts all year long--at least as Dan and I practice it. We've had some personal and professional chaos over the past month, so forgive our tardiness. The good news is that the wait is worth it, which is more than you can say about this sequel to The Matrix! It has not aged particularly well! But Dan liked the Luddite rave. More to come very soon and we love you very much. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Paris Marx is joined by Jathan Sadowski to discuss the relationship between technology and capitalism, and what lessons can be taken from the Luddites to properly assess and understand these systems.Jathan Sadowski is is the author of The Mechanic and the Luddite: A Ruthless Criticism of Technology and Capitalism. He's also the co-host of This Machine Kills and a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Information Technology at Monash University.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Eric Wickham.Also mentioned in this episode:Jathan wrote about AI and the Tinkerbell Effect in Futurism.Support the show

On this episode of Tech Won't Save Us, Paris Marx is joined by Jathan Sadowski to discuss the relationship between technology and capitalism, and what lessons can be taken from the Luddites to properly assess and understand these systems.Jathan Sadowski is is the author of The Mechanic and the Luddite: A Ruthless Criticism of Technology and Capitalism. He's also the co-host of This Machine Kills and a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Information Technology at Monash University.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

We begin this episode by thinking about the work of people's hands.  We wonder about the connections between knitting and history, trade, the industrial revolution, social connection, activism, and new interpretations.Along the way, we'll:visit Tudor England, when the wool trade was at its economic core and resulted in some pretty intense legislation for common citizens,check in on technology like framework knitting and the surprising etymology of the term Luddite,observe the long term effects on handicrafts by the Industrial Revolution, and uncover some excesses of the Victorians while we're at it,take knitting forward through wars, the Great Depression, changing technologies such as synthetic fabrics, and rapidly changing relationships between people and the clothes they wear, honor knitwear designers who brought the craft forward,marvel at the confluence of the Riot grrl, the growth of DIY culture, and the internet that allowed learning, inspiration, and community to flourish, connect the dots with examples of craftivism around the world, pay tribute to the good done by Brixton's Craft Forward organization,leave breadcrumbs for self study on topics like contemporary fashion, share resources for getting involved,and … you didn't think we'd do an episode on knitting and not mention Tom Daley, did you?This is a very visible episode. See our SHOW NOTES for photos, articles, and much more. Episode photo by Steve Forrest from Workers' Photos Archive. 

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for December 3, 2024 is: eschew • ess-CHOO • verb To eschew something is to avoid it, especially because you do not think it is right, proper, or practical. // Their teacher was known as a Luddite because he eschewed the use of smartphones and tablets in the classroom. See the entry > Examples: “Scheduled work shifts [at Burning Man] were delayed and continually rearranged, causing confusion among campers as to how and when to contribute.... While some of us found ways to help, others took it as an opportunity to eschew their responsibilities. However, those of us who showed up united, and handled business, did so with aplomb...” — Morena Duwe, The Los Angeles Times, 9 Sept. 2024 Did you know? Something to chew on: there's no etymological relationship between the verbs chew and eschew. While the former comes from the Old English word cēowan, eschew comes instead from the Anglo-French verb eschiver and shares roots with the Old High German verb sciuhen, meaning “to frighten off.” In his famous dictionary of 1755, Samuel Johnson characterized eschew as “almost obsolete.” History has proven that the great lexicographer was wrong on that call, however. Today, following a boom in the word's usage during the 19th and 20th centuries, English speakers and writers use eschew when something is avoided less for temperamental reasons than for moral or practical ones, even if misguidedly so, as when Barry Lopez wrote in his 2019 book Horizon of ill-fated Antarctic explorer Robert Falcon Scott, “with an attitude of cultural superiority, eschewing sled dogs for Manchurian ponies....”

Madison puts on her smarty pants and comes prepared to talk all things Desk Set (1957) with Chelsea. This Katharine Hepburn/Spencer Tracy romp explores the age old battle of the intersection of industrialization and the human condition. Digressions include the Luddite movement and AI, but the conversation in this one really serves to remind listeners that both hosts actually did get something from their degrees-- the ability to dissect this film in a way as fun and interesting as dissecting owl pellets at the zoo as a kid. Wait, can we please get confirmation of how universal that experience is? Regardless, we hope you enjoy Chelsea's favorite pre-60's film thus far as both hosts come to develop a deep fondness for Hepburn (Katharine, that is).  Connect With Us Follow us on Instagram @loveatfirstscreening or send an email to loveatfirstscreening@gmail.com Production Hosts: Chelsea Ciccone and Madison Hill Music: Good Steph Artwork: Chelsea Ciccone Social Media: Marissa Ciccone About the Show An examination of classic tropes and iconic characters pits connoisseur against cynic—one romantic comedy at a time. The cinematic world of love and laughter had rom-com enthusiast Madison head over heels from the time Harry met Sally. For genre skeptic Chelsea, however, it's been a grueling enemies-to-lovers plot. In Love at First Screening, Madison introduces Chelsea to all the fan-favorite love stories she's never wanted to watch. One friend's passion might be the other's displeasure, but doesn't love conquer all? Tune in every Wednesday to find out.

Paris Marx is joined by tante to discuss troubling developments in the open source world as Wordpress goes to war with WP Engine and a new definition of open source AI doesn't require being open about training data.tante is a sociotechnologist, writer, speaker, and Luddite working on tech and its social impact.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Eric Wickham. Transcripts are by Brigitte Pawliw-Fry.Also mentioned in this episode:tante wrote about the problem with the Open Source Initiative's definition of open source AI.Check out this link for the full breakdown on the Wordpress drama.Wordpress changed its trademark guidelines on September 19 regarding the use of the WP abbreviation.Tumblr and Wordpress started selling user data for AI training earlier this year.A lot of the controversy around Richard Stallman started blowing up in 2019.Support the show

On this episode of Tech Won't Save Us, Paris Marx is joined by tante to discuss troubling developments in the open source world as WordPress goes to war with WP Engine and a new definition of open source AI doesn't require being open about training data.tante is a sociotechnologist, writer, speaker, and Luddite working on tech and its social impact.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Members of the Luddite Club on not using smartphones or social media Tomaš Dvořák - "Game Boy Tune" - "Interview with Luddite Club members" Maps - "Lack of Sleep" - Counter Melodies [0:54:58] https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/145508

Lance & the Luddite roll through Week 2 with some reviews of FBS upsets and recaps of good FCS matchups.  Lance rants about some poll imperfections he recognizes early in the season.  It's not a bonus, it's a feature. Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/joe-montague/only-good-motion License code: IOJFVJDRZUJNTL6Q

In today's episode, I talk way too much about what it's like to live in a town that has fairly consistent electrical outages - and what I've gleaned from living so many days without electricity - a Luddites Vacation! Today we explore our attachment to technology and what I'm putting on my Analogue Menu / Blackout Box - for days when I need a serious break from technology (or just suffer from an electrical outage). My hope is that this week's episode inspires you to take a little Luddite vacation of your own and UN-PLUG! Need Advice? Got Questions? I'd love to hear from you. Email me at janelyon369@gmail.com Sign up for the Meditation Mastery waitlist Get my free 10-Minute Energy Re-set Follow me on IG: @dakiniinabikini

Unmaking as Emancipation Who really is a Luddite? Contrary to popular usage of the term, Luddites are not anti-technology; they are anti-exploitation. In E4, we discussed the constant tug-of-war between labor and capital that pushes history forward. Capital, on its side, innovates to strive for more accumulation and profits, primarily by developing new technology to reduce labor costs. This is the situation skilled artisans in 18th century Europe found themselves in; after being forced into the wage economy by capitalism, the system continued reducing its use for them as it innovated technologies to reduce labor costs. The skilled artisans resisted, striking down the machines taking their livelihoods away. Labor organizing at the time was illegal, so workers had few legal means of protest. Here in Kenya, we find a similar parallel in the unfolding of colonialism. Under it, our elders were forced into the wage economy through laws such as the Crown Land Ordinance that forced them out of the land they relied on to make a living and the imposition of monetary taxes that they had to work to pay for. In Kericho, for example, 90,000 acres were stolen from the Kipsigis and Talai and leased to tea-farming multinationals. Those who the land had been stolen from found themselves forced to work for their thieves. Upon independence, the new neocolonial overseer class allowed the British multinationals farming tea on the land to continue working there, often at lower than market-rate land lease fees. The Kipsigis and Talai continued to work on the land that had been stolen from them as well; they had no access to the factors of production that they could use to remove themselves from this system. Then, as it happened to the artisans of the 1800s, their labor (& consequently livelihoods were continuously made redundant as these tea companies introduced machines to cut labor costs. In E4, we discussed how states and corporations have laid out bureaucracies to rein in unions and drag out conciliatory procedures. The tea-pickers, through their union, Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union, after fighting for a whole 10 years in court with the mechanizing multinationals, lost their case in 2021. So, what did they do in the absence of their ability to undermine capital? They found another way to undo their oppression; by destroying the machines responsible for their lost livelihoods. Framing our discussion around these 2 points in history (the 18th-century Luddite movement and the 21st-century tea-pickers resistance) and making reference to the various ways amorphous groups of workers are fighting back against capital as discussed in E4, we put forth all this work as the work of unmaking. What are the different ways we unmake the oppressive structures governing our lives? Tune in for an exciting discussion.

It's an interesting dichotomy to live in one of the most blessed nations in world history and to realize that it is being run by sociopaths. Doug Casey explains their ascendance in the U.S. government. The public figures who openly questioned the jab mandates, risked more than most people realize. Kurt Mahlburg has a great essay on Novak Djokovic, Aaron Rodgers, Kyrie Irving & the fight for medical freedom. So much of the conflict in our world today is fomented by a globalist order that benefits from the chaos it sows. Brandon Smith has a great explanation of why these folks cannot abide a Trump re-election. Why do so many people stop learning after college? Patrick Carroll says it has a lot to do with how we are introduced to education as children. Article of the Day: Is it possible to be a digital minimalist in a tech-saturated world? Here's a refreshing take on the upside of being a modern Luddite. Sponsors: Life Saving Food  Fifty Two Seven Alliance Iron Sight Brewing Co. Quilt & Sew

Paris Marx is joined by tante to discuss why it's hard for Europe to challenge the US and China on tech and why we should change how we think about innovation.tante is a writer, speaker, and Luddite working on tech and its social impact.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Eric Wickham. Transcripts are by Brigitte Pawliw-Fry.Also mentioned in this episode:tante spoke about innovation at re:publica 2024.Paris also gave a presentation on data centers.German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron wrote an op-ed about shared priorities in the Financial Times.Sam Altman successfully lobbied to water down the EU's AI Act.Support the Show.

The Luddites, who smashed machines in the 19th century, in an organized effort to resist automation, are often portrayed as uneducated opponents of technology. But according to Blood in the Machine author Brian Merchant, “The Luddites were incredibly educated as to the harms of technology. They were very skilled technologists. So they understood exactly how new developments in machinery would affect the workplace, their industry, and their identities.” In this episode, Kelly talks with Brian about the history and legacy of the Luddite movement, and what workers who are being oppressed by the tech titans of our time can learn from the era of machine-breakers. Music: Son Monarcas & David Celeste You can find a transcript and show notes (including links to resources) here: truthout.org/audio/let-this-conversation-with-mariame-kaba-radicalize-you/ If you would like to support the show, you can donate here: bit.ly/TODonate If you would like to receive Truthout's newsletter, please sign up: bit.ly/TOnewsletter

On this episode of Tech Won't Save Us, Paris Marx is joined by tante to discuss why it's hard for Europe to challenge the US and China on tech and why we should change how we think about innovation.tante is a writer, speaker, and Luddite working on tech and its social impact.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Hey, everybody. We're sharing something special today from our pals over at the Say More podcast, where in a special series, Boston Globe columnist Shirley Leung is opening up the conversation about stress and burnout to help listeners feel less alone and inspired to get help. She connects with experts like Krista Tippett and Emily Nagoski, who use medical science, social science, and philosophy to answer deep questions about how stress works on our bodies and our minds so we can work better and live better. In this episode that we're sharing with you, computer scientist and best selling author Cal Newport says we've been thinking about productivity all wrong. We are big fans of Cal Newport. Shirley talks to Cal about the ways the modern office worker is primed for professional burnout, how hybrid work is just making it worse, and what we can do about it. He's not a Luddite by any stretch, but he says that we should quit social media and leave our phones behind whenever possible. Okay, here comes the preview. You can listen to Say More here: https://link.chtbl.com/saymore?sid=designbetter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Silicon Valley acclaimed entrepreneur and author Andrew Keen of Keen on and Keen on Substack joined us. We heard his views on the Internet and big tech companies and how new agency and a middle ground are needed rather than regulation or new technology. Andrew discussed the future of work as well as failures of Facebook despite its economic successes; the damage potential of AI; failures of the digital revolution and Israel as a U.S. junior partner. He additionally touched on privacy and surveillance; Google's "Do no Evil" and Google as the first AI company and AI's running the narrative of the 21rst century. We concluded with Andrew defending against shutting down Tik Tok. However, the episode took place the day after former U.S. President Donald Trump was found guilty on thirty-four felony counts and so we began by getting Andrew's reactions and analysis on all of that. Andrew opined that "the extraordinary is ordinary in politics in America" and spoke of January 6th as being more theatre than existential crisis and the Nineties as being more violent and more disturbing. He also spoke of every day seeming to be a crisis in America and his sympathy for protesting students.

[originally published on Patreon Sep 10, 2022] In part 2 of 4, I revisit and reiterate the Cathars' cosmology and the situation leading up to the Albigensian crusade. Along the way I discuss Thomas Pynchon and his essay on the Luddites. Then I discuss the period of time immediately before and leading up to the Albigensian Crusade, namely two Cistercian preaching missions to the Languedoc. One of these was spearheaded by Bernard of Clairvaux. In particular, I utilize a dissertation which posits alternate or additional, dare I say parapolitical reasons for these preaching missions. This, too, is setup for the following episode. Songs: Balferd Baldrs by Burzum

In the analog corners of Utah, Libby Slem navigates the digital age with a Luddite's charm and a warrior's grit, facing Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). This isn't your everyday pain; it's a journey through a rare nerve disease that transforms every facet of life, from motherhood's joys and trials to the heart's metallic beats, courtesy of an atrial septal defect. Libby's candid conversation unfolds the layers of CRPS, beyond the pain to the diagnosis stages, and the sheer impact on her personal and parenting life. With humor and gravity, she delves into the challenges of seeking support in a world barely scratching the surface of understanding chronic pain.Our recent chronic pain episodeFor more info on CRPSCatch the full video version of this episode on YouTubeFollow Sickboy on Instagram, TikTok and Discord!

Original Air Date: 12/23/2021 Today we take a look at some of the history of labor struggles in America and the current wave of strikes that is giving renewed energy to the labor union movement and the struggle for better working conditions for all. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get AD FREE Shows & Bonus Content) SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Lessons from the Luddites - On the Media - Air Date 12-10-21 Gavin Mueller [@gavinmuellerphd], assistant professor of New Media and Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, on what modern lessons can be learned from the Luddite workers of 19th century England. Ch. 2: Victory at Starbucks, Struggle at Kellogg's Part 1 - Jacobin Radio - Air Date 12-13-21 Suzi talks with John Logan about the unionization victory at Starbucks in Buffalo, and the continuing Kellogg Co. strike. Ch. 3: Strike Wave Workers Flex Their Muscle in Tight Labor Market Part 1 - Intercepted - Air Date 11-10-21 We hear from Kaiser Permanente workers, and then Labor Notes' Jonah Furman joins The Intercept's Washington Editor Nausicaa Renner to discuss this year's strike wave. Ch. 4: Labor Unions From Pullman to Kelloggs. Labors long, hard road. - Unf*cking The Republic (UNFTR) - Air Date 12-18-21 The episode includes a blow-by-blow analysis of a recent interview with the CEO of Kellogg's to translate Wall Street speak for “how to fuck workers and influence inflation.” Ch. 5: Victory at Starbucks, Struggle at Kellogg's Part 2 - Jacobin Radio - Air Date 12-13-21 Suzi talks with John Logan about the unionization victory at Starbucks in Buffalo, and the continuing Kellogg Co. strike. Ch. 6: Class Struggles in the US Today - Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff - Air Date 12-2-21 The "labor shortage" isn't, "Build Back Better" does not begin to approach what Europe already has.   SEE FULL SHOW NOTES MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 9: Lessons from the Luddites Part 2 - On the Media - Air Date 12-10-21 Gavin Mueller [@gavinmuellerphd], assistant professor of New Media and Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, on what modern lessons can be learned from the Luddite workers of 19th century England. Ch. 10: Labor Unions From Pullman to Kelloggs. Labors long, hard road. Part 2 - Unf*cking The Republic (UNFTR) - Air Date 12-18-21 MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions)   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com

Express skepticism about technology and you might be labeled a "Luddite." However, the true story of the historical Luddites offers a fascinating perspective on the relationship between workers and technology. In this episode, Adam chats with tech journalist Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech, about the historical Luddites and their fight against wealthy elites replacing the working class with machines—a struggle made only more relevant by the state of the tech industry today. Find Brian's book at at factuallypod.com/booksSUPPORT THE SHOW ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/adamconoverSEE ADAM ON TOUR: https://www.adamconover.net/tourdates/SUBSCRIBE to and RATE Factually! on:» Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/factually-with-adam-conover/id1463460577» Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0fK8WJw4ffMc2NWydBlDyJAbout Headgum: Headgum is an LA & NY-based podcast network creating premium podcasts with the funniest, most engaging voices in comedy to achieve one goal: Making our audience and ourselves laugh. Listen to our shows at https://www.headgum.com.» SUBSCRIBE to Headgum: https://www.youtube.com/c/HeadGum?sub_confirmation=1» FOLLOW us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/headgum» FOLLOW us on Instagram: https://instagram.com/headgum/» FOLLOW us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@headgum» Advertise on Factually! via Gumball.fmSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Air Date 2/20/2024 "Luddite" should never have become the epithet that it is as the Luddites were never afraid of or opposed to technological advancement, they only opposed the exploitation of workers and the degradation to society that came with the unfair distribution of the benefits of the targeted technology. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Clips and Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: The New Luddites - SHIFT - Air Date 2-14-24 Activists are fighting back against generative AI and reclaiming a misunderstood label in the process, says Brian Merchant in a new piece for The Atlantic. Ch. 2: Being a Luddite Is Good, Actually ft. Jathan Sadowski - Left Reckoning - Air Date 5-29-21 Jathan Sadowski (@jathansadowski) of the This Machine Kills (@machinekillspod) podcast repairs our sabotaged understanding of the legacy of the Luddites. Ch. 3: Why this top AI guru thinks we might be in extinction-level trouble | The InnerView - TRT World - Air Date 1-22-24 Lauded for his groundbreaking work in reverse-engineering OpenAI's large language model, GPT-2, AI expert Connor Leahy tells Imran Garda why he is now sounding the alarm.   SEE FULL SHOW NOTES FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 12: Final comments on the fork in the road and a look at our options References: Rethinking the Luddites in the Age of A.I. A Scottish Jewish joke - Things Fall Apart - Air Date 1-25-22 MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) SHOW IMAGE:  Description: An 1812 block print of “The Leader of the Luddites” depicting a man in disheveled early 1800s clothing and missing one shoe leading other men up a hill while a building burns in the background.  Credit: “The Leader of the Luddites”, Messrs | Working Class Movement Library catalog | Public Domain   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

Brian Merchant is a tech reporter, and he'd been covering the industry for years when he started to notice a term that kept coming up. When he wrote a story that was critical of tech, he'd be accused of being a "Luddite."Like most people, Brian knew at least vaguely what the term "Luddite" meant. But as time went on, and as Brian watched tech grow into the disruptive behemoth it is today, he started to get more curious about the actual Luddites. Who were they? And what did they really believe? Brian has a new book out about the Luddites called Blood in the Machine. And it explores how English textile workers in the 19th century rose up against the growing trend of automation and the machines that were threatening their livelihoods.Blood in the Machine