The article literally draws that distinction in the first paragraph.

I mean, even going back, people had all kinds of problems with all kinds of automations, e.g. Luddites and the subsequent starving in the streets.

I mean, I would think the opposite it the truth.

Other than a few masochist CEOs, most people don't like having to work for a living to ensure they don't starve and are homeless. It's just in the current paradigm it's what we have do to. And because we have to do it, people get really nervous when rich people attempt to replace human work with automation. Not because we won't have to work, but because we will have to starve.

And our automations dream of electric sheep :).

I think there's a more general negative sentiment against AI (a specific type of automation) in recent months. I mean, people are trying to burn down Altman's house. The average person who follows tech news might be more reluctant about automation than before. But there'll always be technologists who push for automation at any cost.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if journalist are getting high on their own supply of resentment and fear mongering

Drudgery is not as much drudgery when there is variety. I think a lot of people who see their work as "drudgery" actually just are forced to do one thing and never even think about doing a second thing during their day.

Majority of AI use people encounter has zero to do with "automating drudgery" and a lot to do with "producing slop fast and cheap".

Working in IT and AI related fields I made the opposite observation. Taking as HR an example, professionals there wanted to keep the boring reporting tasks and automate the human part, e.g. career guidance, mediation etc.. At the time I could not understand the reason why. In hindsight it was a reward driven decision. Human to human interaction is rarely instantly rewarded. Producing reports on the other hand is measurable and mostly rewarded right away.