While many of us spent a lot of time last month staring at the chimney of the Sistine Chapel to see what colour smoke would come forth from it, and in so doing, find out whether or not a new Pope had been chosen, we should all perhaps be spending a bit more time thinking of the smoke that rose from the 19th-century factories that were set alight by the Luddites.

For years we have been taught that the Luddites were a group of backwards criminals who refused to accept technology and, because of this, went on a rampage to destroy machinery at textile mills. History, though, as explained in the foreword to The 1619 Project, is fluid and is “shaped by the perspectives, biases and interpretations of historians and the broader cultural context”.

Thanks to new historical insights and the re-examining of the story of the Luddites, we have been able to learn that they were not anti-technology. In fact, many of them were highly skilled operators of the machines that, in some cases, had been in use for at least 200 years before their “revolution” began. What history now tells us is that the Luddites did not rebel against the technology itself but the fact that certain unscrupulous factory owners made use of it to circumvent labour practices. Rather than the indiscriminate attacking of textile mills we were taught about many years ago, Kevin Binfield, the editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites, says: “They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called ‘a fraudulent and deceitful manner’ to get around standard labour practices.”

While ultimately unsuccessful, at the time of the Luddite uprising the cost of living was rising, inequality was increasing, markets were being flooded by cheap, increasingly mass- produced products, and rather than the introduction of technology leading to improved working conditions and increased leisure time, the benefits were largely going to only a few.

It was for these reasons that I immediately thought of the Luddites when I read a story about a new startup called Mechanize which aims to “create the tools, data and digital environments needed to train AI agents that can do any job humans can”.

“AI automation could accelerate global economic growth by about an order of magnitude, akin to the economic growth effects of the Industrial Revolution.”

Founder Tamay Besiroglu has previously argued in a research paper that “AI automation could accelerate global economic growth by about an order of magnitude, akin to the economic growth effects of the Industrial Revolution”, but many remain concerned. Based on the current levels of inequality and the skewed distribution of resources the world already faces, even if automating everything does all its champions say it will, how can we be sure that this will not, once again, simply benefit the few? (It would also require a complete rethink of social, political and economic theory – but that is maybe a bit too “heavy” to tackle in an in-flight magazine.)

Back to the Luddites then. Richard Conniff, writing in the Smithsonian magazine, says: “People of the time recognised all the astonishing new benefits the Industrial Revolution conferred, but they also worried… that technology was causing a ‘mighty change’ in their ‘modes of thought and feeling’.” So too, we can recognise all the “astonishing new benefits” that AI can bring to the world, but we need to also be aware of the dangers.

“At the time of the Luddites,” Kyle Chayka writes in The New Yorker, “many hoped the subpar products [being produced at the mills targeted for attack] would prove unacceptable to consumers or to the government. Instead, social norms adjusted.” Can the same be said about the growing acceptance of so-called “AI Art” – people proudly proclaiming that they are using tools like ChatGPT to write everything from job applications to thank- you cards or even condolence messages, or the fact that there are books “written” by AI available to buy online?

Conniff perhaps sums it up better than I can in the closing paragraph of his article: “Getting past the myth and seeing their [the Luddites’] protest more clearly is a reminder that it’s possible to live well with technology – but only if we continually question the ways it shapes our lives. It’s about small things, like now and then cutting the cord, shutting down the smartphone and going out for a walk. But it needs to be about big things, too, like standing up against technologies that put money or convenience above other human values.”

Until next time, enjoy your journey.

David Bishop