Your argument is the one that has been put forth against every form of automation since the industrial revolution. It's not changing the subject to recognize the parallel.
> I really can't be bothered engaging with the rest of your post, as you simply ignore facts that don't suit your argument and keep reiterating what you want to happen in the ideal economic world you prefer to inhabit. This is just ideology divorced from reality.
I'm not sure which facts you think I'm ignoring.
Suppose that AI automates 20% of jobs, causing everyone's costs to go down by an average of 20%. Meanwhile the people who lost those jobs have to find different ones, which e.g. may not pay as well (after all, there is a reason they didn't take those jobs before).
Your argument is apparently that this is bad for them and a problem -- they might have to take a job at $45,000 when they currently make $50,000. But if the same forces also cause their annual expenses[0] to go from $50,000 to $40,000, this is neither bad nor a problem. And for some other person making $50,000 doing something else who didn't lose their job, their expenses went down from $50,000 to $40,000 too, which is even better.
[0] In real dollars; in practice the Fed might respond to this by increasing the money supply to prevent nominal consumer prices and wages from going down.
Which part of this are you even disputing?
No we're not. This is a discussion about the EU rolling out the first regulatory proposals for AI. You don't get to change to subject to whatever is convenient for your argument at a given moment.
I really can't be bothered engaging with the rest of your post, as you simply ignore facts that don't suit your argument and keep reiterating what you want to happen in the ideal economic world you prefer to inhabit. This is just ideology divorced from reality.