The emphasis on long-term, unprovable risks like AI superintelligence is a strategic diversion. It shifts regulatory and safety efforts away from addressing tangible, immediate problems like model inaccuracy and security vulnerabilities, effectively resulting in a lack of meaningful oversight today.

Initial public fear over new technologies like AI therapy, while seemingly negative, is actually productive. It creates the social and political pressure needed to establish essential safety guardrails and regulations, ultimately leading to safer long-term adoption.

Initially viewed as a growth driver, Generative AI is now seen by investors as a major disruption risk. This sentiment shift is driven by the visible, massive investments in AI infrastructure without corresponding revenue growth appearing in established enterprise sectors, causing a focus on potential downside instead of upside.

The rhetoric around AI's existential risks is framed as a competitive tactic. Some labs used these narratives to scare investors, regulators, and potential competitors away, effectively 'pulling up the ladder' to cement their market lead under the guise of safety.

Venture capitalists calling creators "Luddite snooty critics" for their concerns about AI-generated content creates a hostile dynamic that could turn the entire creative industry against AI labs and their investors, hindering adoption.

Unlike the early internet era led by new faces, the AI revolution is being pushed by the same leaders who oversaw social media's societal failures. This history of broken promises and eroded trust means the public is inherently skeptical of their new, grand claims about AI.

In 2015-2016, major tech companies actively avoided the term "AI," fearing it was tainted from previous "AI winters." It wasn't until around 2017 that branding as an "AI company" became a positive signal, highlighting the incredible speed of the recent AI revolution and shift in public perception.

Despite broad, bipartisan public opposition to AI due to fears of job loss and misinformation, corporations and investors are rushing to adopt it. This push is not fueled by consumer demand but by a 'FOMO-driven gold rush' for profits, creating a dangerous disconnect between the technology's backers and the society it impacts.

Unlike other tech rollouts, the AI industry's public narrative has been dominated by vague warnings of disruption rather than clear, tangible benefits for the average person. This communication failure is a key driver of widespread anxiety and opposition.