> people felt safe that they would not be poor

The actual fear underpinning this isn't even about being "poor", it's that being poor means starving, freezing, not having a bed to sleep on, not being able to get basic healthcare in emergencies..

It's possible to provide all those things without "giving away free money" to everybody, but..that's probably more complicated for now.

In any case, whether one "deserves" to live in basic comfort shouldn't depend on one's ability to do jobs that depend on holding back technological progress.

> In any case, whether one "deserves" to live in basic comfort shouldn't depend on one's ability to do jobs that depend on holding back technological progress.

It shouldn't, but it does. So if we can't change this fact, we have to find a middle ground so that the people alive right now aren't thrown under the bus.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. Progress is inevitable in the end. I just wonder if we have to be destructive in our road to achieve it. Environmental and social damage are also problems that we need to tackle. Keep in mind that unstable societies, where people are fearful of the future, are prone to revolutions, and an unstable political climate is detrimental to technological progress.

I see very few people at the top speaking up about this, and that only makes me more skeptical of the usefulness of AI. If it's only going to be used against me, why would I ever support it?