    > They are being told, on the one hand, that these tools are going to eliminate millions of jobs, and on the other that they have to use them if they don’t want to fall behind.

I'm currently reading a fascinating book called Blood In The Machine° about the Luddites who opposed certain technologies in 19th century England and the parallels with the current state of affairs. It's important to remember that while history doesn't repeat itself, it often rhymes.

° https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59801798-blood-in-the-ma...

▲ pocksuppet 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Because history is written by the victors, the Luddites were painted as idiots who just hated machines for no reason or dumb reasons. This couldn't be further from the truth.

	▲	elmomle an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The sad thing that I haven't been able to resolve in my mind is that this is a cultural multi-party prisoners' dilemma among sovereign entities. From a power-centric point of view, if my neighbors intentionally cast off modern technology, they are ripe for domination, economic exploitation, etc. The history of human civilization from the age of city-states onward is about navigating the need for protection from hostile, arrogating outside forces (and/or being one of those hostile forces).
	▲	smitty1e 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For example, the post-demise advent of Val Kilmer in "As Deep as the Grave" https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/filmmakers-de... could prove a turning point. If the "societal we" don't care to drown in AI-driven slop, the capitalist argument would seem to be a rebirth of local theater, written by no-kidding playwrights and performed by local actors in neighborhood venues. The "societal we" will have the humanity and art that it demands in the marketplace as consumers, pure and simple.