Yes, because - to be blunt - yours is so much lazier. I picked machines that were undeniably controversial at the time they were introduced, because they did a

Yes, because - to be blunt - yours is so much lazier. I picked machines that were undeniably controversial at the time they were introduced, because they did all the things you're claiming to be upset about here: They put people out of work, they enriched capital owners, they changed social structures, they altered governments. Essentially - they are relevant discussion items for the topic at hand (if you're unaware, the general term "luddite" for use as "anti-technology" directly comes from the english textile workers getting replaced by looms, which they tried to destroy repeatedly, and were eventually suppressed with military force, with sentences including execution and exile to penal colonies). That's not some blasé "waves hand 'technology good'" reference I'm making, and I think your response is partially so annoying because we likely agree on a lot of things about the potential negative impacts of AI. I just think the way you're articulating it is relatively low effort, and I think the original post is absolutely allowed to say that. You'll get dismissed because you're so obviously wrong about the easily verifiable things that it's hard to take you seriously about anything. Which is exactly the impact of comments like "Why talk about this because we'll all eventually die" - they alienate your allies because they are trivial and trite trash.