What you see above in the picture are saccharine tantrums which also happen to be very intellectually unserious. Do not get me wrong, these people have good intentions. They are simply unintelligent.
You will never not find it funny how far the populists of the sub-intellectual luddites manage to never grasp what sustained GDP growth entails at literally any level of abstract thinking, and to never expand any causal link beyond the most basic form possible.
The objection is not that tech or AI is useless or a wasted effort. It is that the fact it would be uniquely transformational and disruptive is the entire reason some people think it should be kept maximally constrained so we can remain close to the ill-defined sentimental fabric that exists today. Remain "human."
At the cost of what, you idiots? What do you mean you're rebelling? Rebelling against 5% GDP growth? Rebelling against extreme poverty dropping by more than 90% to below 10% worldwide? Rebelling against a 50% drop in infant deaths since 2000 due to better vaccine supply? Against ARV becoming cheap enough that AIDS is no longer a death sentence in poor countries? Against faster food growth and greater food availability for the starving? Against tens of millions no longer facing water scarcity? Against families no longer needing their children working at subsistence margins? Against refrigerated blood, insulin and medicine? Against mothers living past childbirth?
And rebelling in favor of what exactly? So that a few industries can preserve a moat? So that the professional classes in New York and Los Angeles can feel culturally affirmed? So a provincial dream of sentimental stasis can be mistaken for moral seriousness?
What humanity are you talking about if you are willing to trade away compounding improvements in life expectancy, health, abundance and capability just to remain aesthetically attached to stagnation?