It is reshaping society in much the same way the industrial revolution did. Luddites resisted change, for precisely the same reason people aren't happy about AI, and it's now a derogatory label.
It's much better to adapt to a changing world but precisely what that entails is still up in the air.
Why does tech believe there should be no constraints whatsoever on what we build? Either our "change the world" pitches were completely inflated--what we do is meaningless dross--and we don't need to be regulated, or our mission statements were bang on and like any world-shaping thing we desperately need need to be regulated. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not against AI regulation on safety grounds but I'm not convinced it's a good idea to try to use regulation to preserve jobs. That feels like it would have much more damaging longer term consequences.
Not at all what I'm saying. What should they have done? Not trained on code they weren't explicitly licensed to do so, and only given access to workers.
The message of companies offering "productivity gains" (or outright replacement: "Hire Devin") to workers is "we're only interested in putting you out of work; how you pay your mortgage and get health care is your concern; call your congressperson". The fact that they're pushing hard to replace workers and flat out stating that their business models are illegal under current copyright law says everything about their offering: hey big business, if we put a carve out in copyright law your SWE headcount goes to zero; call your congressperson.
Hence my original--earnest--question: do you all who are working on AI honestly think the government will fix this?