I mean historically, with essentially every other incrrease in technology and GDP this has been true, at least broadly speaking.

The quality of life of the poorest in the world has been improving over time.

It is absolutely worth considering "would things really be different this time?" But it's also a mistake to think automatically that it WILL be different this time.

> The quality of life of the poorest in the world has been improving over time.

Because those technological improvements were accompanied by social changes and regulation to adjust for the technological changes.

It isn't necessarily a mistake if you can scare people into clicking, or perhaps granting you special regulatory privileges. It may be unethical.

>I mean historically,

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

The problem is we have to think about the actions we are taking and what those results will be. Just saying "oh, all of history before now needed human labor, but don't worry we're replacing that and nothing is going to change" is a nonsensical statement. In previous times when massive technology changes occurred we typically see very large wars break out. This was terrible and all, but war was a regional thing with regional effects. During the 20th century war became a global thing with global consequences all the way up to biosphere altering weapons of mass destruction.

The threat of MAD set up a time of relative global peace coupled with fast transportation and an explosion in the human population has set up a very fragile state of humanity. Products must keep moving and energy must keep being produces or billions and billions of people will die because they need things from the other side of the world to show up.