On December 15, 1811, the London Statesman issued a warning about the state of the stocking industry in Nottingham. Twenty thousand textile workers had lost their jobs because of the incursion of automated machinery. Knitting machines known as lace frames allowed one employee to do the work of many without the skill set usually required. In protest, the beleaguered workers had begun breaking into factories to smash the machines. "Nine Hundred Lace Frames have been broken," the newspaper reported.

The Luddites have a bad reputation. These days, the word is most commonly used as an insult--shorthand for somebody who doesn't understand new technology, is skeptical of progress, and wants to remain stuck in the ways of the past. That perception couldn't be more wrong, according to Brian Merchant. In his new book, Blood in the Machine, Merchant argues that understanding the true history of the Luddites is vital for workers today grappling with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation in the workplace. "At least in my lifetime, the Luddites have never been more relevant," Merchant, 39, tells TIME. "We are confronting a series of cases where technology is being used by tech companies and executives in different industries as a means of trying to drive down wages and worsen conditions so that the entrepreneurial class can make more money."

In the early 19th century, textile workers in Nottingham rebelled against their factory owners As factory owners began to use new machinery that reduced the number of employees and factories they needed, workers felt that their skillset was being wasted and their livelihoods threatened. This rebellion was the Luddite movement. The term ‘Luddite’ has since been used to describe those who opposed industrialisation, automation, and in more recent times some cutting-edge technologies threatening to disrupt the mainstream. When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), you can sympathise with the Luddite philosophy to an extent. The idea that we can teach

As factory owners began to use new machinery that reduced the number of employees and factories they needed, workers felt that their skillset was being wasted and their livelihoods threatened. This rebellion was the Luddite movement. The term'Luddite' has since been used to describe those who opposed industrialisation, automation, and in more recent times some cutting-edge technologies threatening to disrupt the mainstream. When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), you can sympathise with the Luddite philosophy to an extent. The idea that we can teach machines to think for themselves is an Academy Award-winning one, from Ex Machina to I, Robot.

For investors in Boo.com, WebVan and eToys, the bursting of the dotcom bubble came as a bit of a shock. Companies like this raised vast sums on the promise that the worldwide web would change everything. Then, in the spring of 2000, stock markets collapsed. Some economists had long been sceptical about the promise of computers. In 1987, we didn't have the web, but spreadsheets and databases were appearing in every workplace - and having, it seemed, no impact whatsoever.

What would have taken weeks or months of reporting by an investigative team today could take a lone journalist aided by artificial intelligence only one day. The fictional scenario below was inspired by the very real technological progress detailed in a recent study by The Associated Press. In fact, AP spent the past few months meeting with leaders in the artificial-intelligence field for an extensive report detailing the impact of AI in journalism. You can read the report here. By 2027, newsrooms will have an arsenal of AI-powered tools at their disposal, and journalists will seamlessly integrate smart machines into their everyday work, the study predicts.

This is the text version of remarks I gave on June 26, 2016, at a panel on the Moral Economy of Tech at the SASE conference in Berkeley. The other panel participants were Kieran Healy, Stuart Russell and AnnaLee Saxenian. We were each asked to speak for ten minutes, to an audience of social scientists. I am only a small minnow in the technology ocean, but since it is my natural habitat, I want to make an effort to describe it to you. As computer programmers, our formative intellectual experience is working with deterministic systems that have been designed by other human beings. These can be very complex, but the complexity is not the kind we find in the natural world.