AI, Sewing & Raging Against the Machine

How sewing machines give us some perspective on AI hysteria.

If you have a pulse in 2024, you probably haven’t gone more than a few days without hearing some fear-mongering about AI.

It’s going to take our jobs. It’s pushing out misinformation. It’s the beginning of the end. It’ll ruin humanity. It’ll destroy the world trying to turn it into paperclips.

It could be pure naiveté on my part, but I feel like the fears are out of proportion. This might be the first technology we’ve encountered that can “think” for itself, but it’s far from the first disruptive technological revolution.

Every time a new technology is introduced — whether it be the printing press, in-home electricity, or the birth control pill — a similar pattern plays out: People are stunned, then they are angry, they lash out, then they learn to live with it and move on. It’s not as though these technologies didn’t come with a side serving of unadulterated evil.

As everyone who criticizes AI will not let you forget, the printing press caused the spread of misinformation and blatant falsehoods at unprecedented rates. Likewise, electricity only sped up the operation of the printing press, and there are growing cries questioning whether the pill is a net good for society.

Most of us probably can’t imagine living in a world without the first two. And personally, I like living in a world where the third is an option, but it’s not hard to see how each of these technologies came to fruition at a dear cost to humanity. Regardless of the feats of technological advances, no machine has ever replaced human touch, and even the most advanced machines require some kind of human contact.

“Technology is cyclical.” —Dennis Duffy

Technology is definitely NOT cyclical, but our reactions to it are. Nowhere can I see the blueprint for how we react to (and eventually coexist with) technology than with the advent of the sewing machine.

It wasn’t long ago that all clothing was painstakingly sewn by hand. Even the cheapest clothing took hours to make, and the materials were so expensive that even the wealthy only owned a few articles of clothing¹ compared to the 200+ articles (speaking for myself here) that any modern person might have in their own closet.

Clothing is a human need, and a single garment represented dozens of jobs and hours of labor from the people growing the fibers to the spinners, weavers, dyers, lacemakers, merchants, warehouse owners, haberdashers, tailors, dressmakers, and embroiderers. Except for merchants and proprietors, garment industry jobs paid very little. According to Henry Mayhew in London Labour and the London Poor², employers might even deduct wages for providing tea or room and board.

In 1830, a French tailor named Barthélemy Thimonnier patented the first iteration of the modern sewing machine. It was clunky and could only sew straight lines, yet it got a patent from the French government to mass-produce military uniforms.

Respectable jobs in a tailor or dressmaker’s shop didn’t come by every day, so if this very Substack has taught you anything, you know the French are a bit too easy to incite to revolution when something threatens their livelihood.

In 1831, about 150 tailors — true heirs to Ned Ludd’s revolution — raided Thimonnier’s factory to destroy the machines, causing him to flee and shutter his company. A couple of hundred French tailors, however, couldn’t stop this revolution. The sewing machine was the future, and inventors kept improving it. Now, we don’t know a world without them.

But the sewing machine never replaced garment workers. Instead, it changed the garment industry in a few key ways:

It changed fashion

To this day, even the most advanced sewing machines cannot do certain things. We never developed machines that could sew delicate buttons, voluminous cartridge pleats, and complicated sleeves — we just changed what was fashionable.

Instead of requiring dozens of shank buttons, most clothing has a handful (if any) of 2- or 4-hole flat buttons requiring no hand sewing. Cartridge pleats may have been the norm for women’s skirts since at least the 17th century, but they disappeared as soon as machines made it possible to do less complicated gatherings. Instead of detailed sleeves with an asymmetrical flat pattern, most of us wear t-shirts with sleeves designed to be attached in three seconds.

It changed our relationship to clothing

When Mary Cooley, a midwife and single mother, passed away in 1788, the York County Court ordered that her entire estate of £381.12 be recorded, including the 53 articles of clothing she owned. These items of clothing were among the most expensive things Cooley owned, and she likely altered them to fit her changing figure and match fashion trends over the years instead of buying new ones.

Now, you can buy 10 dresses on Shein for under $150.

The Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed the value we place on our clothing. Except for a wedding dress or similar items, clothing isn’t a valuable resource imbued with meaning. Unless you die with a closet full of designer clothing, most will probably go to the landfill or in the trash when you move on.

It changed jobs in the textile industry

Most of us don’t wear haute couture garments made entirely without the aid of machines, yet all of our clothing is handmade. Humans still need to guide the machines, embellish garments, pack them up and ship the boxes. While garment workers are probably not as skilled as they were in the 18th century, they are still needed.

Further automation is on the horizon, but we are far from being able to chuck a sheep into a machine and pull out a sweater (and hopefully the sheep).

AI is smart, but it will never be human

There’s a Doppler effect when we discuss new technologies. As we see it approaching, we feel a shrill, distressing sense of urgency. As it passes, we wish it well and move on.

Throughout history, many technologies have been treated as evil beings that come to supplant God and destroy humanity, so it’s no surprise that printing presses were common targets of vandalism. But what is a printing press without someone to author the words on the page? When all is said and done, a printing press is just a hunk of metal and wood slathered in ink—but it has no agenda.

Likewise, AI is smart — to the point that it’s terrifying. And its fast rate of development is a reasonable cause for concern. AI is not — and never will be — human. It cannot see around corners the way we can. It cannot replace the human touch. It has no malicious intent. It will cause us trouble and result in a fast learning curve. It can be used for evil, but it is not the author of it — we are.

In time, we’ll learn to use it for our benefit (and the occasional evil deed), and then we’ll move on.

1. You can see an interesting 1777 register of Martha Jefferson (wife of Thomas Jefferson) noting her impressive 16 gowns (minus two still at the dressmaker’s), 20 shifts, 18 aprons, and 9 petticoats here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj7.059_0004_0053/?sp=30

2. This is a long piece, but you can see some of this information digested here: https://www.family-tree.co.uk/how-to-guides/what-was-life-like-for-our-victorian-seamstress-and-dressmaker-ancesto/