No, but software engineers for example have more power, even in an employer's market, than Luddites.

You can simply spend so much time on meticulously documenting that "AI" (unfortunately!) does not work that it will be quietly abandoned.

Software engineers have less power than we'd like to think; we may be paid a lot relative to the baseline, but for vast majority that's not even in the "rich" range anymore, and more importantly, we're not ones calling the shots - not anymore.

But even if, that presupposes a kind of unity of opinion, committing the exact same sin the article we're discussing is complaining about. Many engineers believe that AI does, in fact, work, and will keep getting better - and will work towards the future you'd like to work against.

The luddites or at least some of them threatened employers, factories and/or machinery with physical aggression. They lived in the locations where these industries for a long time remained tho automation certainly made the industry more mobile. Like unions they used collective bargaining power in part derived from their geographic location and presence among each other.

A Guatemalan or Indian can write code for my boss today...instead of me. Software engineers despite the cliff in employment and the like are still rather well paid and there's plenty of room to undercut and for people to disregard principles. If this is perceived to be an issue to them at all. If you talk to many irl... Well it is not in the slightest.

No one will read that documentation. And by the time you finish writing it, the frontier AI models will have improved.

The Luddites were among the precursors to Marx et al.; even a revolution wasn't enough to hold back industrialisation, and even that revolution had a famous example of the exact kind of resource-distribution failure that Marx would have had in mind when writing (Great Famine in Ireland was contemporaneous with the Manifesto, compare with Holodomor).

What? Can you elaborate?