[drewbeck]

I caught that too. The piece is otherwise good imo, but "the luddites were wrong" is wrong. In fact, later in the piece the author essentially agrees – the proposals for UBI and other policies that would support workers (or ex-workers) through any AI-driven transition are an acknowledgement that yes, the new machines will destroy people's livelihoods and that, yes, this is bad, and that yes, the industrialists, the government and the people should care. The luddites were making exactly that case.

> while it’s true that textile experts did suffer from the advent of mechanical weaving, their loss was far outweighed by the gains the rest of the human race received from being able to afford more than two shirts over the average lifespan

I hope the author has enough self awareness to recognize that "this is good for the long term of humanity" is cold comfort when you're begging on the street or the government has murdered you, and that he's closer to being part of the begging class than the "long term of humanity" class (by temporal logistics if not also by economic reality).

[RHSeeger]

My take was that it's not

> We should hate/destroy this technology because it will cause significant short term harm, in exchange for great long term gains.

Rather

> We should acknowledge that this technology will cause significant short term harm is we don't act to mitigate it. How can we act to do that, while still obtaining the great long term gains from it.