And these arguments are different from those employed by the OG Luddites, how...?

I’m sorry does it need to be? Does being a Luddite invalidate the argument I’m making or perhaps you can see that all automation is about trade offs and perhaps this moves the needle too far in one direction. By all means continue using Luddite as a slam dunk argument not to consider the impact of this technology on society vs previous forms of automation.

Edit: Then one day when the species goes extinct because we’ve got our robo-waifus we can exclaim in our final breathes that the luddites were wrong. All technology is great, no issues whatsoever.

(Shrug) There are two careers to avoid if you prefer things to stay the same over time: 1) technology; and 2) art.

A rising tide really does lift all boats, whether you believe it or not. History furnishes no exceptions to this rule.

I’d like that to be true but the argument that people who champion AI always make is that those who embrace the technology will out compete those who don’t. This technology isn’t free, certainly not globally. Sounds like power will concentrate in the hands of early adopters. If AI makes everyone productive then labor value goes down. I’m just having a hard time seeing this as a massive benefit to ordinary people.

In that regard you do have a valid point. Equitable access to models is going to be a huge, huge deal. Things aren't getting off to a great start in that regard.

To those looking at becoming politically active in this area, it will be much better to work to democratize AI than it will be to try to stop it. The former will be difficult, the latter impossible.