What would Ned Ludd have to say about artificial intellgience?
Times of technological change, such as the present AI revolution, have a way of summoning old anxieties. Lately, that has meant the return of a lexical boogeyman that harkens back to a bygone era: the Luddites.
Times of technological change, such as the present AI revolution, have a way of summoning old anxieties — and with them, old antagonists.
Lately, that has meant the return of a lexical boogeyman that harkens back to a bygone era of techno-pessimism: the Luddites, those people over the years thought to fiercely oppose new technologies.
The Wall Street Journal recently declared 2026 “Hot Luddite Summer.” Gen Z’s growing skepticism about AI — documented in a recent Gallup poll, among other places — has led to comparisons with anti-tech resistance movements of yore. Some, such as the group of New York youth who call themselves the Luddite Club, embrace the label. Others, such as tech investor David Friedberg, use it to cast stones.
As debate intensifies over the economic, societal and environmental impacts of artificial intelligence products and the data centers powering them, and new and potentially invasive technologies, such as flock cameras, trigger street protests in communities across the U.S., a new and far messier cultural divide is emerging between proponents and opponents of the transformative tech, said Steven Vallas, an emeritus professor of sociology at Northeastern, who studies the technological transformation of work and the struggles that follow.
At stake is not simply whether these technologies will transform society, but who will regulate and ultimately bear the consequences of a transformation that is set to drastically redefine everything from work, authorship and creativity to scientific research, drug discovery and healthcare.
There’s no question that AI and associated technologies have become highly politicized, with some analysts saying the 2026 midterms could be a referendum on the technology.
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 71% of Americans believe AI will lead to fewer jobs in the United States over the next two decades, up from 64% in 2024. A separate YouGov poll, addressing an adjacent technology, found that 46% oppose police license-plate cameras like those made by Flock, compared with 38% who support them.
Editor’s Picks
“It could be an important issue, especially where the economy isn’t working and technology is resonating with people’s homes and their jobs,” Vallas said.
Central to the pro or anti-tech discourse is a label, one that — depending on who you ask — can seem like a playful jab at a group of old fogeys, or an accusation to be hurled at opponents of “progress,” and thus a rallying cry for specific forms of political resistance, Vallas said.
“Over time, ‘Luddism’ has become a cudgel used to tarnish critics of technology, who are often portrayed as irrational opponents of progress,” however it is defined, Vallas said. Such a derogatory use of the term relies on a “narrow and selective interpretation” of the history of the movement.
The Luddites were a group of 18th century textile workers, who protested the industrialization of the textile industry and the mechanization of their work, brought about by the industrial revolution that began the same century. This period of radical change bore technologies that would transform the textile industry, including power looms and knitting frames, which allowed manufacturers to produce goods much faster and with less reliance on skilled labor, Vallas said.
The workers were not happy and as the legend goes some resorted to sabotage, including Ned Ludd, a mythical figure who — the story goes — is said to have destroyed textile machinery. His supporters invoked him as their fictional leader and used his name as a pseudonym for their cause.
Over decades, Luddism has been invoked in a variety of contexts — and used to scapegoat people more recently. The microwave once inspired kitchen-born skepticism as well as supermarket self-checkout lines, which met resistance when they were introduced, Vallas said.
Northeastern Global News, in your inbox.
Sign up for NGN’s daily newsletter for news, discovery and analysis from around the world.
Even the internet initially struck some as disconcertingly complex and dystopian, though early browsers such as Netscape and online service providers such as AOL and CompuServe helped make it more accessible, he said.
The point, according to Vallas, is that technologies that initially provoke knee-jerk resistance oftentimes become “more convivial” over time, once they’re adopted.
Like revolutions past, Vallas sees today’s AI revolution as something of a convergence of forces: the internet, the rise of what he called an “algorithmic society” and the “digitization of work” through the so-called platform economy, where much of day to day commerce now takes place on digital platforms.
“There are reasonable debates over the history of this movement,” he said. “But many accounts question the idea that the movement was a reactionary rejection of new technology, since it harbored lessons that we would do well to consider, like the idea that technologies develop most effectively when they incorporate the knowledge and interests of the workers themselves, and that violent conflicts are inevitable when large scale changes are imposed in the absence of democratic channels.”
Adam Cooper, a teaching professor of linguistics at Northeastern, said the term has grown from an “in-group label” used to describe oneself or one’s own community, to one directed at the “out-group,” or those perceived as outside the community, “with negative connotations.”
“Whether Luddite is dismissive or derogatory is, I’d expect, in the eye of the beholder,” he said.
