The quick condemnation as "Luddism" is counter-productive because it allows side-stepping critical thinking about how new technologies may impact our life -- whether it is ultimately for the good or the bad.
The cry of luddism should be made cautiously, because it so often is accompanied by rose-color technological optimism.
Technology surely does hold the potential to make our lives better, and there are many ways in which it has, but when we talk about truly radical technologies that can utterly and irrevocably change the world and the way we view ourselves in relation to it (e.g. powerful AI), it is worthwhile to think long and hard before that game-changer arrives.
For example, I do agree that I'd like most jobs to be automated eventually, with the outcome of:
> The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, and adventure.
Yet, I highly doubt that the default outcome of:
> Let markets work ( this means voluntary contracts and free trade) so that capital and labor can rapidly reallocate to create new fields and jobs.
Is going to be this sort of automation utopia where we're free from labor. More likely there will be a long and painful battle about implementing basic income or some other powerful social safety net; it will likely only be after increased poverty and misery that the safety net will be begrudgingly granted if the particular brand of captialism we currently embrace continues.
A more pessimistic outcome is that powerful AI arrives before we've really thought through the moral and ethical issues, and it possibly destroys us, or is developed and exploited by military interests to who knows what outcome.