Thread by @bcmerchant

Writers and artists standing up to AI are the modern-day Luddites—and for all our sakes, we’d better hope they win.

I've been researching and writing about the Luddites for oh 3-4 years, and it's a good time to discuss the parallels and the stakes, which get higher every day.

First, when I say “Luddite,” I'm talking about the men and women who saw businessmen using automated machinery to drive down wages and subordinate workers into factories—bosses aiming to profit at their direct expense—and organized a spirited rebellion against them.

I do *not* mean the modern conception of the word—'one who hates or doesn’t get technology', basically—whose meaning was imprinted onto history by the ruling class that crushed the real Luddites.

(That, by the way, required the largest domestic occupation in British history.)

The Luddites are seeing a revival—SF writers (@doctorow), critics (@bigblackjacobin, @parismarx & @jathansadowski), law scholars (@veenadubal), tech workers (@dellsystem & @bentarnoff), academics (@gavinmuellerphd & @libshipwreck) & artists (@mollycrabapple) sing their praises.

@doctorow @bigblackjacobin @parismarx @jathansadowski @veenadubal @dellsystem @bentarnoff @gavinmuellerphd @libshipwreck @mollycrabapple In his latest (excellent) piece for the New Yorker, the GOAT Ted Chiang defended the Luddites, too.

newyorker.com/science/annals…

@doctorow @bigblackjacobin @parismarx @jathansadowski @veenadubal @dellsystem @bentarnoff @gavinmuellerphd @libshipwreck @mollycrabapple And it's just in time. Because what's happening with AI—and the corporations & executives that stand to profit off of it at the direct expense of artists, writers, and creators—is like history repeating itself.

At the onset of the Industrial Revolution, entrepreneurs investing in machinery knew that their tech couldn't "replace" cloth workers, who at the time made up England's largest industrial workforce. The work it produced was cheaper, shoddier, and still required humans to oversee.

But machinery *did* give them an excuse to ignore trade rules, hire cheaper (read: child) labor, and to organize work in a factory system, where they would have more control over workers—and where they would profit directly off of the workers' labor.

This is essentially what the purveyors of AI—OpenAI, Midjourney, et al—are aiming to allow corporations to do today. AI generated art can't replace human artists, but it's certainly cheaper, and to plenty of clients it will be "good enough." Human artists are already losing work.

ChatGPT can't write good scripts—but it *can* churn out text that passes for a first draft, allowing studios and executives to then say they're hiring writers for a rewrite, not for original material; which is cheaper for them, but may even require *more* work to get into shape.

The technology, AI in this case, becomes a justification to rewrite standards, contracts, and regulations—and to argue, often perversely, that workers should be paid less. It becomes a tool for eroding wages and breaking power.

Moreover, as it was with cloth production in the 1800s, bosses in every industry that require workers produce text or images have now been handed an incredible tool to amass leverage over their workforces: Ask for a raise or slack off, we just might replace you with a machine.

Writers, artists and content producers today have recognized this, and they're fighting back.

The WGA strike is a key battle—they've smartly drawn the line against letting studios use AI to produce scripts, and they have the power to stand up to industry

latimes.com/business/techn…

Another is @mollycrabapple and @art_inquiry's open letter asking newsrooms and editorial operations to restrict AI generated art from publishing. It has nearly 3k signatures, including @NaomiAKlein, @chrislhayes01, and @johncusack.

artisticinquiry.org/ai-open-letter…

@mollycrabapple @art_inquiry @NaomiAKlein @chrislhayes01 @johncusack The Luddites recognized the exploitative way a technology was being used against them, and said 'no'—to the usage, to the conditions, not to technology itself. There is power and possibility in such refusal.

@mollycrabapple @art_inquiry @NaomiAKlein @chrislhayes01 @johncusack Luddites ran the gamut from starving framework knitters to comparatively well-off cloth finishers. Nearly all cloth-making jobs were impacted by automating entrepreneurs, and so many fought back; 1st by petitioning their government, appealing to owners, and peacefully protesting—

@mollycrabapple @art_inquiry @NaomiAKlein @chrislhayes01 @johncusack then by doing what the Luddites would become most famous for. Smashing the machinery that was being used to exploit them—and only that machinery. They were technologists themselves, after all, and had no problem with using tech as a tool; just not as a means of erasing others.

@mollycrabapple @art_inquiry @NaomiAKlein @chrislhayes01 @johncusack Their rebellion was awesome and popular—they were the Robin Hoods of the day. The state had to use all its power to crush the Luddites on behalf of the entrepreneurial class—it made machine-breaking a capital crime & hung them by the dozens.

@mollycrabapple @art_inquiry @NaomiAKlein @chrislhayes01 @johncusack Much is different now, too. Unions were illegal then; today they may be the best way to combat bosses who want to atomize and degrade workers with new tech. The state is not so bloodthirsty it's willing to execute Luddites. Today, we understand the context—and we have solidarity.

When the Luddites lost, we all lost. A small class of elite entrepreneurs were allowed to dictate the shape of the future of work, and we got deadly factories, surveilled offices, and a world where most people have to "stand at the command" of others. (Luddites hated that.)

Now, 200 years later, that same class is going to try to use AI to do much the same—rewrite working standards in their favor, consolidate power and control, and jack up profits at our expense.

The writer's strike has showed us one way of fighting back, the artists another.

It's going to take a unified front—from precarious freelancers to unionized screenwriters—to keep management from using AI to erode wages, kill jobs, and load extra work onto those who remain. To make AI work for us, not for executives. That fight starts now.

The full story of the Luddite rebellion, and how it reverberates in the age of AI and big tech, as it happens, is the subject of my upcoming book, which is up for preorder.

Thanks — and down with all kings but King Ludd

hachettebookgroup.com/titles/brian-m…

John Cusack, welcome to the Luddite rebellion