Actually, it's an apt label because the machine looms were brought in by factory owners so they could employ less skilled operators who commanded a much lower wage, and the factory owners pocketed the difference. Skilled weavers were up in arms and smashed the machines.

Today, the purpose of AI is not to get a machine to do your job, it's to look good enough to persuade your boss to sack you and split your salary between the boss and the AI company.

> Skilled weavers were up in arms and smashed the machines.

And how did that work out of them? People conveniently ignore that part of history which seems to clearly indicate that outright destruction rarely leads to progress. With AI, I'd argue that we have much more opportunity to steer than to destroy, and the latter is not even a viable option so - why even entertain it at all? It's just raging for raging sake.