Frequency is important too.
>independently of whether the trends are good for most humans or what we ought to do about them.
This whole article is about the trends and of they are good for humans. I was pleasantly surprised that this was not yet another argument of "AI is (not) good enough" since people at this point have their fences set on that. I don't think it's too late to talk about how we as humans can manage pandora's box before it opens.
Responses like this dismissing the human element seem to want to isolate themselves from societal effects for some reason. The box will affect you.
> 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.
>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
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.
It's unfortunately the case that even understanding what AI can and cannot do has become a matter of, as you say, "ideological world view". Ideally we'd be able to discuss what's factually true of AI at the beginning of 2026, and what's likely to be true within the next few years, independently of whether the trends are good for most humans or what we ought to do about them. In practice that's become pretty difficult, and the article to which we're all responding does not contribute positively.