That analogy doesn’t work because you can solve climate change by drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. You can’t “solve” the existence of deep learning tech except by somehow deleting every trace of its existence and somehow preventing people from creating it again.

Very anti-Marxist worldview

I’m just a pragmatist who deals with the actual trends of capitalist economy and society and not just what I feel like I want

A) why are you worried about these things? they live in the deepest and most unsettling parts of the uncanny valley. From an artistic perspective, they’re a joke.

B) Material conditions change. You can’t pretend them away or waste your time trying to stuff cats back in bags. That way lies the failure of Luddism: it had no answer to the looms beyond their destruction, which meant it was doomed to failure. You have to find a way to use the thing in a just manner, not smash it and expect it to just go away. Luddism’s problem isn’t that it doesn’t identify a real and significant harm, it is that the answer it presents to that problem is the political-economic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”

C) You can feel however you like about a thing. Feeling that way is ultimately unrelated to the conditions and technologies that led to its creation, however, and it isn’t cause to pursue a quixotic task.

I’ll admit marxists sometimes do this but honestly in this case I don’t really see a problem.

This whole anti AI trend is reactionary to the core, it’s based on nothing other than “the machines took our jobs” and “machines cannot feel therefore machine art BAD”.