You could write this from the perspective of a historical luddite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite] and the points would be identical.

This person is a Luddite. I just don't think that implies what most people on HN wish it would imply, though, as reading thea actual article shows. You don't even need to ask your LLM of choice to summarize it for you, as the salient point is contained within the first two paragraphs: paragraph one, the Luddites were workers protesting their terrible living conditions. Paragraph two, these workers were jailed and killed by the government.

Then, further down the article, it elaborates:

> The Luddite movement emerged during the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars, which saw a rise in difficult working conditions in the new textile factories paired with decreasing birth rates and a rise in education standards in England and Wales.

> Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labour practices of the time.

>The crisis led to widespread protest and violence, but the middle classes and upper classes strongly supported the government, which used the army to suppress all working-class unrest, especially the Luddite movement.

And they had a valid point.

This is a tired, weak, and pathetic argument. Opposition to technology is very reasonable if that technology is doing more harm than good.

In the case of present-day LLMs, the vast majority of the public finds them to be more harmful than beneficial.

Why accept a decreasing quality of live instead of sensible regulation?

This line again.