Heh, we really are reliving the same processes that prompted (pun not intended) the Luddites to smash textile machines 200 odd years ago. And looking at what happened with physical manufacturing of goods, the Luddites were completely correct about what would happen. See, the Luddites were not against technology, instead they were against the increasing social stratification that would happen due to the manner in which the machines were owned and operated. The textile machines were owned by a small elite of factory owners, who could use the new automation to produce textile in a more efficient manner than what could be achieved via a human artisan doing the same product. This was good for the factory owner as they could get the equivalent or greater output while hiring fewer people, leading to better margins. In some ways it turned out to be good for the consumer, as they could now get goods cheaper, and in many ways said goods would be at a more uniform quality, even if the quality itself might have been worse than what a master crafts(wo)man would have been able to produce. And that left the artisan, the worker, the producer. While many would have been able to pivot to using such machines or find other employment, many would have been left wayside after being made redundant by automation. And they, understandably, took offence to that, because they were deprived of a livelihood to support themselves and their families, which in turn lead to desperation, and as we know, desperate people can be very dangerous to those who they perceive as being the cause of their suffering. See the various strikes, revolutions etc. of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Now, a common argument against applying the same logic to today and the use of AI is that AI would be coming for all mental labour, not just specific fields like software, but at least in my view, this misses the point. IMO the point is that the current batch of techbro oligarchs lack the decorum and taste to be the stewards of this technology. That instead of driving this technology such that it'd benefit all of humanity and try to help those who would become redundant by the machines taking jobs away, for example by lobbying for universal basic income or some other types of safety nets, the techbros gleefully tell the public and the boards of various companies how AI can be used to reduce the need for human resources and put people out of jobs as the machines automate the various industries, just as happened 200 years ago. They seem to revel in the fact that people are losing their jobs as a result of these things, and they seem to not have learnt anything from the Industrial Revolution.

IMO every other discussion about things such as the quality of code produced by LLMs is frankly secondary to this argument of the ownership of LLMs being in the hands of a select few instead of the commons. The arguments here are just as relevant as they were back in 1848, just saying.