Then lets see how much praise Co-pilot gets.
Yes, the growing pains can be horrible for the people affected, but it's ultimately an unstoppable force and in my opinion a much better approach is to try to help the people affected rather than resist the technology.
Imagine what we would have lost if we had let the Luddites force us to continue with human labor for everything.
Without a doubt, when it happens to a person it hurts and sucks. I am dreading when it happens to me, which I expect is only a few years away. It reminds me of the old saying: a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job.
Your "logic" is unsalvageably flawed, in so many different ways. At this point it's just a propaganda meme. Past performance does not predict future results. Bang that into your head until it sticks.
Also, "people in general" also would almost certainly be better off after half of humanity was murdered, if you look at it from the perspective of the survivors' descendants. So should we embrace a proposed murder-spree? It "can be horrible for the people affected, but it's ultimately an unstoppable force and in my opinion a much better approach is to try to help the people affected rather than resist" it.
No, I'm not going to bang something so wrong and counterproductive, into my head. I prefer filling my head with correct and useful information, rather than incorrect and harmful information.
Past performance absolutely does predict future results (often). Of course it doesn't guarantee them, but neither does just randomly guessing whatever outcome you want by what makes you feel good and emotionally happy.
If you don't look at past performance at all to inform the future, you're kneecapping yourself and any unfortunate person who has to rely on your judgment. There's definitely a pitfall for people who are too extreme on "data driven decision making" but throwing the baby out with the bath water is certainly not the answer.
So what's your solution given that it's so simple? Should the government be subsidizing cutlers and wheelwrights to make sure their jobs aren't replaced by technology? Or should we just straight ban factory-made wheels and knives? And should we also be banning automobiles so that grooms and crossing sweepers/pooper scoopers who clear the horse manure from the streets don't lose their job? Where do you draw the line where progression/betterment of society is worth any job loss? And let's say you do ban all technological development since as you say, it's "stoppable." What do you do when an aggressive country develops technologically superior weapons and takes you over? How do you stop them from innovating?
Suppose we ban AI completely to save jobs, and some other country (pick one at random) does not. 10 or 20 years from now their AI doctors are diagnosing diseases way better than our human doctors and it's saving millions of lives a year. Are you still glad we saved a doctor's job here even though millions of our people are dying every year for that? Is that really better?
As you disagree with me that the advancement of technology is unstoppable, I assume you have some good answers to these questions, and I would (truly) be interested to hear some of them.