alt Hacker NewsThey were there, complaining. You just don't remember them because it's easier for the meaning of a word to shift, or at least take on additional contextual meaning, than it is to get people to use a new word once it's reached critical mass. Those people lost the language fight, but were arguably still vindicated, to the extent they were railing against misguided beliefs that equivocated the capacity of the new machines with their human (or more human-involved) predecessor technologies. Who you also don't remember are the people who made extravagant claims and prognostications based on the equivocation.
were they complaining about terminology, or were they complaining about the prospect of losing their jobs?
I'd be happy to revise my opinion if you can demonstrate similar vocal strength on the terminological aspects for those transitions...
You also shifted the goal posts from qualitative to quantitative performance claims. If we ignore that technologies have multiple figures of merit and pretend it's one dimensional, there is a difference between the claim that the machine isn't "printing" vs the machine isn't "printing as well as a human would".
I don't think any of the human printers in the past exceeded the performance levels of current printing technologies, but surely they did exceed the very first machine printers, every technology gets a foot in the door in some niche, and then progressively captures the initially not-yet-automated skills of machine operators.
Would you say an industrial textile weaving machine doesn't weave? At the end of the day its just automation all over again.