Luddites were against automated looms because they thought it'd destroy the careers in the industry.
They were right, it's just that working a loom was a small enough part of the economy that it didn't really matter.
AI is like that, except for every creative or technical career in every industry. It promises to replace all jobs where people are provided creative or intellectual challenge. Nearly every middle class job. Assuming that LLM providers can actually deliver on their promises. But why do we even want to allow them to try?

The owner class gets the lions share of the benefits and none of the drawbacks. The middle class gets almost no benefits, meanwhile their wages get suppressed and the job market gets wrecked.
Even if you're right and this will create new industries, which I'm skeptical of, displaced workers need to retrain at their own expense. How many people, in the middle of their careers and with families, can afford to just start again in a new industry with entry level salaries? And do you know how tough it is for an older person to advance in a new career?
And even then, even if people could afford to switch careers mid-life; where are those careers? Those hypothetical new industries are going to take decades to mature let alone to even be created in the first place. How much unemployment do you think the economy can stand up to for decades?

It's suspicious because you seems like you have a vested interest in AI or in making AI appear positive.
You seem to be framing AI as good for us normal folks, and that the only people at risk are those who do shitty work. That there is some kind of benefit for people to have and that the risk is so negligible that it's fine.
But it's frustrating because you can't seem to describe these benefits, or why the risks are negligible, or even worth it. You just keep steadfastly asserting that it's ok. So where is this conviction coming from and what is the motivation to continue to assert it?