Is it really fixing if it's only short-term with mounting technical debt?

The fact is, it can be a very useful technology when deployed sensibly. Yes, it's going to inflict massive harm on society in multiple ways - but just dismissing it as shit is putting your head in the sand. We need to be figuring out how to ensure that the harm it does is minimised and ideally that it's used in ways that benefit us all. Fuck knows how though.

But it's not just going to go away, no matter how much we might want it to.

I honestly think, it's very cool for prototyping ideas at this point. It's also parasitic. Although I think because of (maybe) different reasons: It gives people the power (which they unfortunately use way too much) to imitate an art, but in an non-arty imperfect way that doesn't comprehend details (of the art), resulting in slop. For software that can go very wrong as we see here. This is also a reason why I mostly quit open-source, because now everyone can code a bad version of a library, it sucked the art out of good open source etc. and it's increasingly difficult because of good wording/"look" etc. to differentiate on quality of code, previously you could often check a code-base review it somewhat and know how good the quality is, now it's more like "is this slop or not?" (in which case I go a big circle around it, because reviewing is often not worth it)

At some point though, I think this automation of work is inevitable, we need to think about a society that can peacefully exist without having the requirement to work to exist. I actually think this could easily be utopian, everyone can focus on what they actually think is fulfilling life.

Though, it's sad and concerning that technology is developing faster than society can adapt, which is why I'm mostly with you, because people (or representatives like politicians) just aren't "programmed" for these fast-paced changes, to adapt the technology such that the future may be more utopian as it currently is heading towards a dystopian future...

Maybe your position would be better served by not lashing out at people as if they're your enemy.

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Statements about the technical capability of a technology don't detract from the negative impacts on the world. Those are two different topics.

Fossil fuels have incredibly massive, civilization-scale problems that are actively harming the modern world AND ALSO have enabled industrialization, pulling billions out of poverty.

AI is objectively capable at some tasks AND ALSO is being used to disrupt the labor market and causing other harmful effects in society.

The world isn't black and white