Yeah, because the ownership class fought tooth-and-nail to corrupt the public's understanding of the name, just like they're doing now with 'AI'. You can't be mad at the bastardization of one term without being mad at the other when the same forces lead to both.

Your definition of the Luddites is strong on who they were and what they did, but weak on their motivations.

So: your point is the usage of AI in common vernacular should not have changed from its meaning 50 years ago, and using it in its modern sense as shorthand for LLMs and generative models is bad.

And your point is also that the modern usage of a Luddite is correct and you should ignore the original group and the conditions that led this group to smash the textiles because the usage of that word changing is fine and we should not look at original usage?

Got it. Words change. Sometimes. And other times no.

While this definition isn't necessarily wrong, it [purposefully] leaves out important context, namely that the so-called Luddites opposed technology and automation due to cuts to their incomes and rights, which were very obviously coming.

If industrial corporations guaranteed to keep all employees, to not lower their salaries, and to maintain the quality standards - the people we know today as Luddites would have never protested.

It was never about technology itself, despite what top Google results or AI summary will tell you. It was about people's livelihoods, rights and freedoms, as well as quality of the craft.