Several of the agricultural revolutions we went though is what freed up humanity to not spend all of it's work producing sustenance, leaving time for other professions like making art and music. But it also destroyed a lot of jobs for people who were necessary for gathering food the old inefficient way.
If we take your argument to it's logical conclusion, all progress is inherently bad, and should be stopped.
I deposit instead that the real problem is that we tied people's ability to afford basic necessities to how much output they can produce as a cog in our societal machine.
> I deposit instead that the real problem is that we tied people's ability to afford basic necessities to how much output they can produce as a cog in our societal machine.
Yes, because if you depend on some overarching organisation or person to give it to you, you are fucked 100% of the time due this dependency.
The jobs in the cities weren't created by the new farming techniques though, those new farming techniques only removed jobs by the millions like you are saying AI might do.
I didn't say they were created by new farming techniques, I said new jobs in general were created by increased urbanization, which was partially fed by agricultural innovations over time. For example, Jethro Tull's seed drill (1701) enabled sowing seeds in neat rows, which eliminated the jobs of "broadcast seeders" (actual title). If you lost your farming job due to automation, you could move to the city to feed your family.
There is no similar net creation of jobs for society if jobs are eliminated by AI, and it's even worse than that because many of the jobs are specialized, high-skill positions that can't be transferred to other careers easily. It goes without saying that it also includes millions of low-skill jobs like cashiers, stockers, data entry, CS reps, etc. Generally people who are already struggling to get enough hours and feed their families as it is.
