The submission is an implementation of a core task in computer vision. Your response is an appeal to vividness unrelated to the submission except in its recruitment of computer vision to sell the FUD.

If researchers getting good at something is sufficient priming to cause you to direct your imagination toward hyperbolically negative outcomes, the problem on your hands is a constitutional resistance to further progress in the research area.

In that case, challenging readers to produce arguments on the finer details of the narrative you've painted in support of the technopessimism is bad faith rhetoric.