Let's go from the top:
Ok, at first I thought I'd just ignore you, but as you warmed up, I saw that after all[,] you were really AI-junkies and that I can get behind in a good way.
My initial tone was, as I have said in the opening paragraph, about your attitude and conduct. "(…) and the fact that most of you have no idea is truly unfortunate" is a very condescending attitude to have, especially without having the decency to put some facts to back it up.
I'm rarely as unpleasant without a good reason and think that I have provided arguments for my reaction. It wasn't due to spite, but how you have chosen to talk down to people. That's a poor show of manners even if we were all laymen. Frankly, it would have been even worse if we were laymen as you would have been in a position to elucidate us but opted to make it a show of arrogance.
I have a very simple proposition. Job loss is real, and about to become obvious, and I think will lead to widespread unemployment starting essentially now.
But the economic climate also had something to do with it. The problem isn't with automation (of which the AI is only a fraction) but with people not having the opportunity or willingness to change their set of skills. There's also a problem of the local government doing something to aid this process.
I'm from Poland, a developing country where people are getting free training thanks to EU reimbursements. I live just a few blocks from a family where the father was a miner and mother was a seamstress. One has become a chef and the other works in a preschool. Overall, they have gained from the change. You can dismiss it as an anecdotal evidence, but it's not uncommon here. Taking a page from your book: just google it and see for yourself.
However, since this opens the can of worms which is politics and economics I will now do something uncommon: admit that I don't know enough about it to make conjectures for the world in general.
Military AI arms and the race to achieve them will be incredible and unwise, and sooner or later will lead to war [with] unimaginable consequences, bigger and more lethal than ever before.
OK, we can both do this now: and like most inventions from the military, it will trickle down to the civilians. I would gladly live in a post-scarcity place where the AI collective has designed for us self-sustaining fusion reactors. All dispersed in a network of small cells that will make it impossible for AI to wipe us out without killing itself so that the only winning move is not to play. My conjecture is as good as yours. You just prefer Vonnegut and I am more of a Star Trek and Lem person.
We can disagree (or agree -- either one is fine) but you do not have to be disagreeable -- that is just silly, and I do not want it. Quite simple.
I am not disagreeable. Seriously, look through my earlier posts. There are scarce transgressions on my part for which I didn't apologise or arguments which I have started due to hate. Even for those, I have made amends with people. I am never above admitting my mistakes, even if it takes time for me to do so. If it turns out that I'm wrong, I will say so without hesitation. Frankly, I feel wrong even about correcting your grammar in the citations above. In general, it takes a lot to provoke me to be as much as snarky.
My attitude toward you is a response to a person who has been throwing loose conjectures and telling people to do their research all while trying to tell them how wrong they are. I might have still disagreed with you if you weren't like that, but you would not get my initial post were you providing sources for your claims or at least not to back paddle on the 'secret military research' every time they are requested. If it's really a secret, then you shouldn't have known about it.
Bottom line: you have not managed to convince me about the AI doomsday either way. And I am not even sure if I have a side in this argument.