There's a second assumption: That "worker displacement" remains an unsolved problem. That assumes a society that chooses to do nothing to in the face of reducing the need for labour, turning something that could be substantial boon into a downside.
In other words: It assumes Marx was right about the central failure-mode of capitalism (an inability or unwillingness to find ways to distribute work and proceeds of work in ways that prevents productivity gains from eventually causing social upheaval).
There's no reason what they describe as "so-so" tech can not also be a significant societal advantage, but it requires structural change to ensure it does not deprive a significant number of people of a livelihood.
In other words: It assumes Marx was right about the central failure-mode of capitalism (an inability or unwillingness to find ways to distribute work and proceeds of work in ways that prevents productivity gains from eventually causing social upheaval).
There's no reason what they describe as "so-so" tech can not also be a significant societal advantage, but it requires structural change to ensure it does not deprive a significant number of people of a livelihood.