[kalkin]

Neither in my previous comment nor in my actual views do I dismiss the human element or expect to isolate myself from societal effects.

> I was pleasantly surprised that this was not yet another argument of "AI is (not) good enough"

The article does assert that, and that's important for its argument that ordinary workers just need to convince decisionmakers that things will go poorly if they replace us.

"Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem... But AI can’t do your job."

This isn't ambiguous.

[johnnyanmac]

Sure you do. I already quoted it

>independently of whether the trends are good for most humans or what we ought to do about them.

Saying "the writer shouldn't talk about this" is about as dismissive of a topic as you can be. You could have simply said "this topic isn't as interesting to delve into", but the framing that "the article to which we're all responding does not contribute positively." suggests that.

>This isn't ambiguous.

It's also talking about the present. The article already made clear it is not going to predict the future of tech in the very beginning. Its looking at the here and now for AI and the human element for any possible futures on whether or not that remains the case or not.

Also note this response. It is again trying to focus on the tech arguments. This isn't the focus of this argument

[kalkin]

That two things can or should be discussed independently doesn't mean either is unimportant. And insisting that you know what I meant better than I do is not a good way to have a productive conversation.

As for the Doctorow article, I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say about "focus", but it's incoherent to read the discussion about replacement of your current job as talking purely about the present - since the job is currently yours, the replacement must happen in the future.