Guillaume Verdon argues that AI doomerism is often a deliberate weaponization of public anxiety. He believes certain actors use fear-mongering to justify seizing control over AI development, convincing the public they shouldn't have access to powerful models for their own good, thereby creating a dangerous cognitive gap.

Every major communication technology has sparked a societal instinct to "control it before it controls you." Fears about AI and disinformation are not new; they echo the historical panic over heresy caused by the printing press. This reframes the current regulatory push as a predictable human reaction to disruptive innovation.

The narrative that AI could be catastrophic ('summoning the demon') is used strategically. It creates a sense of danger that justifies why a small, elite group must maintain tight control over the technology, thereby warding off both regulation and competition.

A strange dynamic exists where the tech leaders building AI are also the loudest voices warning of its potential to destroy humanity. This dual narrative of immense promise and existential threat serves to centralize their power, positioning them as the only ones who can both create and control this technology.

The political left requires a central catastrophe narrative to justify its agenda of economic regulation and information control. As the "climate doomerism" narrative loses potency, "AI doomerism" is emerging as its successor—a new, powerful rationale for centralizing power over the tech industry.

The narrative that AI risk-awareness is just "doomerism" is a recent phenomenon, strategically pushed by those who stand to benefit commercially from unchecked AI development. In reality, concerns about superintelligence risks have been foundational to the AI industry for decades.

AI leaders' apocalyptic messaging about sentient AI and job destruction is a strategy to attract massive investment and potentially trigger regulatory capture. This "AB testing" of messages creates a severe PR problem, making AI deeply unpopular with the public.

Large AI labs cynically use existential risk arguments, originally from 'effective altruist' communities, to lobby for regulations that stifle competition. This strategy aims to create monopolies by targeting open-source models and international rivals like China.

By constantly comparing AI's power to nuclear weapons, tech leaders are making a powerful argument against their own independence. If the technology is truly an existential threat, it logically follows that it should be government-controlled for national security, not managed by venture-backed startups.