[pembrook]

The only thing showing ignorance here is your ad hominem personal attack with zero logical rebuttal of the original ideas.

Not only is it against the rules here, but if I’m so wrong and ignorant, you should be able to dismantle my argument easily!

Yet, you've acknowledged that prior disruptions have been net positive. So I'm struggling to understand your position. You seem to agree.

[wolvesechoes]

So called ad hominem is perfectly reasonable argument type, not personal attack. Please, don't be such a snowflake. Saying that someone is ignorant of how history really unfolded, and therefore their claims not only on how history went, but also how the future will look like, are unsound, is very rational thing to do. Also, you cannot make logical rebuttals of ideas, as logic is concerned with relationship inside formal systems, and ideas worth considering are anything but.

You, and people like you, make analogies between current trends regarding AI and historical processes related to different inventions that were supposed to act as milestones technological progress, or even progress in general. Problem is that, primo, historical events are unique, and all historiosophical attempts so far were futile, therefore saying that "AI, in terms of social impact, is like the mass production of clothing" is completely ungrounded.

Secundo, there are important qualitative differences that make subjects of these analogies more different than alike.

Tertio, people are usually, you know, ignorant of what were the real, immediate social impacts of past inventions. For example, steam machine is being presented as thing that freed a common person from mundane, hard work, but the actual outcome was quite the opposite.

Quarto, claims like "mass production benefitted 99% of population and raised the living standards for all" are very non-trivial, and ideologically loaded, especially if you consider environmental pollution, health hazards, social atomization, worker alienation, and so on.

[pembrook]

I find it amusing you keep insulting me as "ignorant" of the past while all your points rest on the Golden Age Fallacy.

You seem to have invented a fanciful storybook idea of how the average person lived before the industrial revolution, and have ignored every single one of the downsides and discounted all of the upsides of the past 200 years.

There's no further argument to be had though, because yours is not a rational position, but one rooted in emotional feelings and personal frustration. You believe a past you never experienced was better. No logical rebuttal I waste time assembling can refute a fantasy world.

[wolvesechoes]

First, there is no such thing as Golden Age fallacy.

Second, you created a strawman just to feel better.

> have ignored every single one of the downside

I didn't. I said your claims are non-trivial, and enumerated some examples of downsides created by past technical revolutions. There were upsides, there were downsides. It was you who have claimed that "99% are better off". I never claimed anything like that, nor anything that could be considered an opposite..

> You believe a past you never experienced was better

Point me to the exact place where I expressed such belief.

> No logical rebuttal I waste time assembling can refute a fantasy world

You couldn't assemble logical rebuttal because the issue at stake is material, not logical. Learn the difference.

I get it, you are a fragile snowflake that cannot bear criticism, but please, don't put words into my comments even though you cannot find them there.