[bawolff]

> (conveniently ignoring all the differences that make it different)

If someone wants to bring up some of those differences by all means. The reason i am unconvinced is because nobody ever does.

> Another mistake is taking an aloof perspective. A lot of changes that "turned out OK" from that perspective were pretty terrible for the people who actually had to live through them.

Sure, i'd agree. But this is moving goal posts quite a bit. If the claim was simply that some industries might experience some levels of short term disruption due to an emerging technology like AI and it will probably suck for the individuals being disrupted - I don't think anybody would disagree. It also wouldn't make AI exactly unique - short term disruptions in various industries due to changing conditions happen all the time.

[confidantlake]

Every time there was technological advancement the number of jobs for horses increased. For example the invention of the railroad meant they no longer carried the mail long distances, but still the greater economic activity lead to greater demand for horse labor. There may have been some shifts in what jobs they did, but the trend was clear. More technology lead to more horse labor.

And then the automobile was invented. And over the next few decades the demand for horse labor tanked. Now the demand for horse labor is a tiny fraction of what it was a century ago.