Many people's negative opinions on AI-generated content stem from a deep-seated fear of their jobs becoming obsolete. This emotional reaction will fade as AI content becomes indistinguishable from human-created content, making the current debate a temporary, fear-based phenomenon.

Public discourse on AI's employment impact often uses the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy. Critics make a bold, refutable claim that AI is causing job losses now (the Bailey). When challenged with data, they retreat to the safer, unfalsifiable position that it will cause job losses in the future (the Motte).

Society rarely bans powerful new technologies, no matter how dangerous. Instead, like with fire, we develop systems to manage risk (e.g., fire departments, alarms). This provides a historical lens for current debates around transformative technologies like AI, suggesting adaptation over prohibition.

Emmett Shear argues that if you cannot articulate what observable evidence would convince you that an AI is a 'being,' your skepticism is not a scientific belief but an unfalsifiable article of faith. This pushes for a more rigorous, evidence-based framework for considering AI moral patienthood.

Widespread fear of AI is not a new phenomenon but a recurring pattern of human behavior toward disruptive technology. Just as people once believed electricity would bring demons into their homes, society initially demonizes profound technological shifts before eventually embracing their benefits.

When new technology threatens an industry (e.g., photography vs. painting), incumbents attack the innovation's *process* ("it's not real art") because they cannot compete on its *outcome* (a good product). This is a predictable pattern of resistance.

The gap between AI believers and skeptics isn't about who "gets it." It's driven by a psychological need for AI to be a normal, non-threatening technology. People grasp onto any argument that supports this view for their own peace of mind, career stability, or business model, making misinformation demand-driven.

Under the theory of emotivism, many heated moral debates are not about conflicting fundamental values but rather disagreements over facts. For instance, in a gun control debate, both sides may share the value of 'boo innocent people dying' but disagree on the factual question of which policies will best achieve that outcome.

The AI debate is becoming polarized as influencers and politicians present subjective beliefs with high conviction, treating them as non-negotiable facts. This hinders balanced, logic-based conversations. It is crucial to distinguish testable beliefs from objective truths to foster productive dialogue about AI's future.