There are ongoing preparations for the AI regulation summits https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-us-uk-china-artificial-intelligence-control/ that are planned to be held by G7 AI control group and another summit that is being organized by UK - both are planned at the end of 2023. And both more or less explicitly includes "job security" as one of their concerns. Essentially "job security" means that AI is being bounded to preserve the existing need for human workers, by not allowing AI to achieve the necessary capacities or by not allowing AI to use its capabilities.
My question is - how such bounding of AI differs from the 19th century movement of luddites. I am asking for the essential, theoretical differences.
Of course, there are differences from the point of view of class struggle. 19th century luddites were against the interest of the ruling class and the 21st century AI luddites are trying to preserve the upper middle class jobs, class that is politically most active and influential. So - luddites have different power structure now with the different outcome of their fight.
But if we inquire of the essential feature of both movements, then we should ask what is different now. And if current technologies are really that different, then maybe we should not bound them, but - instead - we should try to solve the problems whose solutions were deemed unsolvable with the old technologies - e.g. scarcity.
I am reading, of course, the best book about AI https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/economics-artificial-intelligence-agenda But I would like to understand why one movement of luddites is perceived to be so bad and another movement of luddites is perceived almost as inevitable? And is there any justification from the viewpoint of economics for this? I can imagine, that there can be political or emotional justifications, but those are for other discussions.