I believe not. A slavery based economy would be very comparable to an economy where simply much of labor is highly exploited, has little power and share of economic surplus, but slaves as such are (economically) comparable to very poor laborers.

In a macroeconomic sense, there's no significant difference between poor workers buying their food and housing versus a slaveowner buying food and constructing barracks for the slaves; there's not significant difference between a job being so worthless that noone would pay poor laborers to do it and a job that's not worth the food & resources that slaves would consume while doing it. A poor worker could do a slave's job for just a meal, if (s)he had no better alternatives.

A robot-based economy creates different challenges. If a robot can do a job cheaper than a handful of rice a day, then poor people won't be able to live with such a job ever again. Just as right now people (or slaves!) can't feed themselves by working in a treadmill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treadwheel).

Mass slavery can drive the price of (some?) labor down to the level of bare sustenance. Mass automation can potentially drive the price of (some?most?) labor down below that level - and that's a significant difference.

That was my first thought as well. Another thing that came to mind is that way manual work / craftsmanship was looked down upon has its parallels in the present day, particularly in the US. It's often said that other parts of the world see engineering in particular as a prestigious line of work, but the same cannot be said for the US. It's strange how the US lauds only the extremes: either very blue-collar manual laborers, or very white-collar 0.001%-ers (very often rent-seekers who don't actually add much value to society). People who actually engineer things and drive innovation are not looked up to.