Latest news with #NedLudd
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Brands Must Step Outside Of Algorithms To Reconnect With People
Tim Wragg is the Chief Executive Officer at Human8. The man whose name is synonymous with halting the inexorable march of technology never existed. Over 200 years ago, Ned Ludd was "fake news," his invented name a signature on threatening letters sent to factory owners intent on replacing workers with machines. As modern marketers, advertisers and brand professionals, we cannot be opposed to new ways of working. Yet technology—for all its wonderful gifts—strips us of a unique asset that makes us indispensable: our humanness. A shift is already happening as people push back against tech's overreach, reclaiming what it means to be human. Governments are restricting minors' use of social media, and consumers are rejecting surveillance and manipulation. Concerns about AI's factual errors, copyright issues, environmental impact and mental health effects are growing. One new study revealed that volunteers who used ChatGPT to write essays saw a reduction in brain activity. The Human Disconnect In An AI-Driven World Brands sit in the middle of this uncertainty. While technology enables them to be with consumers 24/7, many of them are becoming disconnected from audiences' cultural realities. When news emerged that Duolingo was making the switch to become an 'AI-first' company, replacing contractors with generative AI, public perception of the brand soured. Meanwhile, Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, recently informed the world that AI "does not love, does not feel loss, does not suffer. And because of that, it is incapable of expressing true compassion or understanding human connection. We do. And that is our superpower." It's a sentiment we at Human8 share. Our superpower is in making those connections, but we see that brands' enthusiasm for AI is weakening their connection to people's realities. We've lost something in the declining status of planners and creatives. Thirty years ago, we marveled at the first clickable ad. Today, analytics optimize targeting, content and bidding in real time. Emerging immersive and automated technology will further enhance brand reach and shopping experiences. Meanwhile, short-form TikTok and Instagram videos and micro-influencers are driving more authentic brand engagement. But do these algorithmic gifts really build more connection? We gain much from frictionless brand experiences, but what are we losing? Should we mirror the doubts of a society that wants to escape algorithms? Why Human Connection Still Matters Organizations are building huge data lakes and assets to capture first-party data through machine learning, with a hyper-rationalist desire to build more data points to improve targeting. I believe that's crowding out our innate abilities to understand the customer on emotive, intuitive and visceral levels—understanding that comes from constant exposure to people and their cultures. For senior brand leaders, that understanding comes from walking the floor, having conversations with customers, responding to verbal and nonverbal cues, and embracing the messiness of reality, not from data or instant AI summaries. A project with one of our clients, a major beauty brand, perfectly encapsulates this desire for increased humanness. We're enabling more experiences that provide leaders with serendipitous insights that can only come from the frictional "messiness" of true engagement. Through a program we created, we've onboarded and trained over 3,000 people, connecting staff with consumers and professionals (salons and the like). The brand can keep its finger on the pulse of how customers are thinking and feeling in highly dynamic categories, as well as sensing and developing empathy with its customers to blend with data. Action Steps For Reclaiming Connection In The Age Of AI So, what can brands do to surf the technological wave while remaining grounded in the humanness that is our superpower? • Rebalance your decision making. The left side of our brains is target-driven, analytical, detailed and logical. The right side sees the whole picture, the contours and complexity. It's the home of empathy and intuition, and it should guide decision making, but many of us put too much stock in left-brain thinking. We must engineer a rebalance because that interconnectedness gets us closer. Apple didn't develop intuitive technologies purely in a lab. Cofounder Steve Jobs believed in getting "closer than ever to your customers. So close that you tell them what they need well before they realize it themselves." • Focus on cultures. Whether it's shop-a-longs, video conversations or one-to-ones, senior marketers need to reconnect with their customers by getting back on the shop floor, listening, observing, feeling, empathizing and measuring. Qualitative and quantitative should be in harmony. Cultures are incredibly complex, and they have constantly shifting patterns and networks that can't be mapped by data alone. Understanding those cultures is crucial if brands want to be more influential and persuasive. • Embrace messiness. There's discomfort in these engagements, but that's where serendipity happens. We've become too comfortable with the clean lines of AI-engineered data collection and dissemination, and we need to pursue a systematically messier approach to extract truly impactful insights. It's a mindset shift that many marketers say they want. But if this is so, why aren't they doing so already? By avoiding uncomfortable situations, we miss the realities of people's lives that they don't always articulate—their frustrations, anger and joyfulness. • Invest in people. Don't just hire them; invest in them. Bring their human skills of creativity, critical thinking and storytelling to the forefront. If an algorithm intermediates everything, human dignity suffers. Many in the industry believe that we as humans are organic algorithms, taking stimuli and processing it the same way machines do. I don't buy that. Humans want greater control over their destinies, and we should help them. The greatest risk for brands is losing human connection. This isn't a rejection of technology, but a call to refocus on our humanity. We must reclaim our marketing strengths, regain control and reconnect with consumers and each other. Forbes Agency Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?
National Geographic
04-08-2025
- Entertainment
- National Geographic
Before AI skeptics, Luddites raged against the machine...literally
Ned Ludd, the fictitious leader of the Luddites, depicted in an 1812 hand-colored etching. The Luddites named their movement after Ned Ludd due to his rebellious spirit. Photograph by Niday Picture Library/Alamy Stock Photo When a band of raiders broke into knitting manufacturer's shop in Arnold, England, in March 1811 their goal wasn't to steal goods or money—it was to smash knitting frames, an early form of textile machinery. These saboteurs were known as Luddites, and those broken frames were just the beginning. Often misunderstood as anti-technology cranks, the Luddites were skilled workers who saw the potential harm that new technology could bring. Now, more than 200 years later, their rebellion feels newly relevant. As artificial intelligence continues to transform the world, age-old questions about labor and technology have reemerged. What did the Luddites fight for—and how does their struggle shed light on movements to rein in AI? Who were the Luddites? In the midst of tremendous change in early 19th-century Great Britain, discontent was brewing among weavers, stocking-makers, and saddlemakers determined to protect their livelihoods. For generations, their craftsmanship had helped make English textiles one of the nation's signature goods. 'The Luddites, as skilled craftspeople, took pride in their work, and criticized the low quality of the goods produced with new technologies,' says Gavin Mueller, assistant professor of new media and digital culture at the University of Amsterdam and author of Breaking Things at Work: The Luddites Are Right About Why You Hate Your Job. Limited Time: Bonus Issue Offer Subscribe now and gift up to 4 bonus issues—starting at $34/year. They took their name from the apprentice stocking-maker and folk hero Ned Ludd, whom scholar Steven E. Jones called 'a collective popular invention.' According to the apocryphal story, when his master scolded Ludd for his poor work, the apprentice protested by smashing a stocking-frame frame to bits. Ludd's act of protest became a rallying cry. Workers dubbed themselves 'Luddites' in honor of the man they called 'General Ludd' and 'King Ludd.' To them, he was nothing less than a Robin Hood figure who represented defiance. And as Robin Hood had Sherwood Forest, the Luddites had central and northern England, the hotbed of their industries—and a region undergoing a significant transformation powered by the Industrial Revolution. This illustration by Frank Peel depicts Rawfords Mill near Huddersfield, Yorkshire in approximately 1810. The textile mill was the first of its kind to introduce mechanization and was attacked by members of the Luddite movement in protest in 1811. Photograph byWhat were the Luddites protesting? The Industrial Revolution was fueled by a simple, marketable promise: Machines could produce goods faster and cheaper than skilled artisans. Gig mills, knitting machines, the powered loom, the spinning mule—which used 1,000 spindles at once to efficiently spin cotton into yarn—and other new textile machinery didn't need skilled workers to man them. To cut costs, factories often hired children for below minimum wage rather than working-class adults. At one factory in Cromford, children accounted for two-thirds of the 2,000-person-strong workforce. They labored under wretched working conditions, including long hours, poor food, and corporeal punishment. At the time, there were few regulations or laws to protect them. (How a tragedy transformed protections for American workers.) The rise of factory systems were rapidly reshaping the textile industry, and they knew many factory owners weren't on their side. If machines could churn out goods more cheaply and efficiently, how could traditional craftsmen compete? 'The Luddites were protesting the way that factory owners and early entrepreneurs were using technology to degrade their working conditions, erode their wages, and usher in a new kind of working—factory work—that would tear up their autonomy and leave them subservient to bosses,' says Brian Merchant, journalist and author of Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion against Big Tech. The Napoleonic Wars only made the situation worse. The series of wars against Napoleon Bonaparte that lasted from 1793 to 1815 caused food shortages and higher taxes that darkened the nation's mood. Unemployment spiked in central and northern England—the very same places where skilled textile workers were already fearing for their jobs. An engraving from 1813 depicts Luddite textile workers protesting against the introduction of mechanized looms and other technological advancements of the industrial revolution. This new machinery threatened the Luddite's livelihoods, replacing textile craftsmen with automation. Illustration by Hablot Knight Browne, Bridgeman Images What did the Luddites do? Beginning in March 1811, bands of Luddites took matters into their own hands. In a wave of coordinated nighttime raids across Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, they broke into factories and targeted frames that directly threatened the work of skilled artisans. In this way, Luddites weren't strictly anti-technology—they protested a system that was displacing them. Manufacturers condemned the Luddites' activities, since their property was on the line. In the first year alone, Luddites destroyed up to £10,000 worth of frames. Damaging property wasn't their only MO. Workers attempted to negotiate with manufacturers, wrote threatening letters to factory owners, and explained their goals in public declarations. Factory employers found an ally in the British government, which deployed an estimated 12,000 troops to the Luddites' operating regions to brutally crush the movement. Thousands of informers in an extensive spy network were activated to gather whatever intel they could to further weaken the Luddites. Machine breaking became a capital offense, with anyone convicted possibly being sentenced to death. In January 1813, for example, a commission in York sentenced 17 Luddites to death by hanging and transported others to Australia. Despite their efforts, the Luddites were ultimately unable to stop the tide of industrialization. The number of British handloom weavers collapsed from 250,000 around 1800 to just 7,000 only 60 years later. The crackdown on the movement also helped the word 'Luddite' take on a new meaning. 'The state actively sought to cast them in a negative light to make them look foolish—and, because they lost, and because the state had influence over many of the nation's newspapers, the derogatory meaning stuck,' Merchant explains. 'Even today, 200 years later, we think of a 'luddite' as someone who dislikes technology—not someone who wages a tactical rebellion against the way elites are using it to ruin people's lives,' he says. Who are the new tech skeptics? AI is creating a new industrial revolution. And once again, creative workers find themselves on the defensive—this time against algorithms that promise efficiency at the expense of human jobs. Mueller points out, 'I think about [the Luddites] often when I see text and images generated by AI—they often strike me as inferior to work produced by even moderately skilled human beings.' (Your biggest AI questions, answered.) Concerns over AI have given rise to new organizations and movements that rage against the machine. PauseAI has picked up the Luddite mantle, protesting what it believes to be significant harms unleashed by AI. The group says that artificial intelligence will cause an erosion of democratic values, economic impacts, and an elevated risk of human extinction. The Algorithmic Justice League is another organization calling for greater accountability with AI and devotes its energy to highlighting the inequalities that the technology perpetuates. (Explore humanity's complicated relationship with robots.) Concerns over the use of AI in Hollywood was also a feature of the 2023 Writer's Guild Strike, which Mueller calls 'a classic Luddite struggle.' Though tech-skeptic groups have their own mission, Mueller sees similarities between them: 'Behind AI skepticism is a larger question. What kind of future do we want to have?' He notes that these organizations have something in common with the Luddite movement, 'a recognition that the only way to counter the power of technology is through collective action.'
The Guardian
30-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
How can Australians make sure AI delivers on its hype? By proudly embracing our inner luddite
If I hear another well-intentioned person justifying their support for the regulation of AI with the qualifier 'I'm no luddite, but …' I'm going to start breaking my own machine. From ministers to union leaders to progressives watching from the cheap seats, there is growing recognition that untrammelled development of this technology carries significant risks. But there is also a reticence to be seen as being anti-technology lest we are perceived as standing in the way of the productivity boom and consequent bounty of abundance that the boosters of these tools promise is just around the corner. After all, we aren't luddites. The problem with being forced into this defensive mindset is that we misread the challenge at hand, which is not so much about the nature of the technology but the power dynamics driving this change. This is where the luddites and their misunderstood resistances to the last big technological revolution, chronicled in Brian Merchant's ripping yarn Blood in the Machine, may help us think through our current challenges. Here's the TLDR: in early 19th-century northern England, textile workers buck up against a new technology that automates their work and replaces well-paid skilled jobs with machines. When factory owners reject demands that the benefits of the new technology be shared, they gravitate around the avatar of young 'Ned Ludd' and begin breaking the new machines and burning down said factories. The resistance rages for five years until the British government deploys troops and criminalises their association, leading many of the rebels to be executed or transported down under. Having been crushed by state power, the luddites become a punchline for anyone who can't find the right wires for their laptop. Maybe it's the residual bloodlines of some of those transported luddites but, according to KPMG research of 47 nations, Australians are in the bottom cohort when it comes to trusting AI systems. This is a trend picked up by the Guardian Essential report. What's interesting is that as more people have begun using large language models including ChatGPT and Google Gemini, their concern about the risks of the technology have actually increased. The Digital Rights Watch founder, Lizzie O'Shea, refers to this dataset as a valuable national resource; it puts the onus on those proposing change to show that the risks have been mitigated. These risks take two distinct forms. The first is the existential risks of a sentient mind controlling the world, fighting wars and playing god. The makers of AI like to keep the focus here because it (a) proves how powerful their machines are; and (b) it pushes the discussion of harms over the time horizon. But the second set of risks is more immediate: that the tools (which are built on stolen information) are being shaped by the same big tech companies that have wreaked their destruction through social media with so little regard for the end user. Only this time it's not the consumers but workers they have in their sights. Over the past few weeks we have seen the bold prediction from Anthropic's chief executive, Dario Amodei, that half of all white-collar entry-level jobs are for the chopping block, while a study from MIT has found that the use of ChatGPT can harm critical thinking abilities. Yet our business leaders are sharpening their pencils, claiming that the technology offers such a productivity bonanza that the only thing we have to fear about AI is fear itself; while the ascendant tech industry is using every tool in their arsenal to avoid the 'constraint' of regulation. This is where the treasurer's newfound focus on productivity as a driver of national prosperity could have perverse consequences, particularly if it gets hijacked by tech and business interests that conflate head-cutting with working smarter. Again, the majority of Australians are sceptical about the productivity mantra. When they hear that word they see cost-cutting rather than shared benefit. These results show that if the government, business and the tech industry want us to embrace their future, they need treat us like the luddites we are. It starts by tapping the thinking of the Nobel prize in economics winners Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, and recognising that productivity comes from giving workers new tools, connections and markets. While the stocking frame and spinning jenny of the Industrial Revolution were crudely extractive, other innovations including the steam engine opened up opportunity and possibility that drove prosperity and innovation for the next 200 years. They also should recognise that where the holders of new technology overreach, resistance will be ongoing. While the luddites may have been defeated, their movement gave way to the first worker guilds that successfully fought for the laws that civilised industrial capital. Finally, they must accept that when power is genuinely shared the benefits accrue in ways that sometimes are not even imagined at the point of connection. The last great productivity surge in Australia was the product of the accord struck between the Hawke-Keating governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which helped to globalised the Australian economy while locking in social wage advances including Medicare and universal superannuation. Likewise in this wave of change, the feedback loops between the makers and users of technology will ultimately create the value, so it only stands to reason those loops will be strongest when trust is high and benefits are shared. Prof Nick Davis from the University of Technology Sydney's Human Technology Institute describes the AI challenge as being like physiotherapy after surgery: 'It only delivers if you put in the effort, follow the program and work with experts who know which muscles to strengthen and when.' Placing Australian workers at the centre of the AI revolution, with a right to guide the way it is used, the capacity to develop and enforce redlines and guardrails on an ongoing basis is not some gratuitous nod to union power, it is the hard-headed path to national prosperity. Proudly embracing our inner luddite and demanding a seat at the table is the surest way of ensuring that this wave of technology delivers on its hype. Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential, a progressive strategic communications and research company that undertook research for Labor in the last election and conducts qualitative research for Guardian Australia. He is also the host of Per Capita's Burning Platforms podcast
