I'm sympathetic, for sure. I say complicated because it's not a straightforward linear causal relationship or one where we can just say "bad". Automation causes the rate of profit to rise for a period. And for some segment of the working population this can lead to increased prosperity. For others less so, as you point out.

But in the long run, competition between businesses leads to at least a short term equilibrium, where automation and labour exploitation rates are roughly equal, or monopolization has occurred. And then rates of profits can plummet and then it's really bad all around.

The point here is that I don't think it's automation itself that creates the unequal distribution of incomes. It's just the market economy. The market economy creates automation in order to gain competitive advantage.

Curtailing automation isn't going to improve wealth inequality. Might even make it worse.

Equalization of wealth requires the intervention of the working population either through unionization or forcing the state to intervene.