The two dominant negative narratives about AI—that it's a fake bubble and that it's on the verge of creating a dangerous superintelligence—are mutually exclusive. If AI is a bubble, it's not super powerful; if it's super powerful, the economic activity is justified. This contradiction exposes the ideological roots of the doomer movement.

Drawing on Frédéric Bastiat's "seen and unseen" principle, AI doomerism is a classic economic fallacy. It focuses on tangible job displacement ("the seen") while completely missing the new industries, roles, and creative potential that technology inevitably unlocks ("the unseen"), a pattern repeated throughout history.

Unlike a plague or asteroid, the existential threat of AI is 'entertaining' and 'interesting to think about.' This, combined with its immense potential upside, makes it psychologically difficult to maintain the rational level of concern warranted by the high-risk probabilities cited by its own creators.

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).

Unlike previous technologies like the internet or smartphones, which enjoyed years of positive perception before scrutiny, the AI industry immediately faced a PR crisis of its own making. Leaders' early and persistent "AI will kill everyone" narratives, often to attract capital, have framed the public conversation around fear from day one.

There's an 'eye-watering' gap between how AI experts and the public view AI's benefits. For example, 74% of experts believe AI will boost productivity, compared to only 17% of the public. This massive divergence in perception highlights a major communication and trust challenge for the industry.

The notable aspect of the Citrini Research piece isn't its dystopian predictions, but its widespread acceptance among investors. Unlike previous 'AI doomer sci-fi,' it's acting as confirmation bias for a market already grappling with AI's disruptive potential. The report's success signals a major shift in 'common knowledge' about AI's socioeconomic risks.

The panic-inducing Citrini paper, which caused a market sell-off, assumes a static economy where AI only destroys jobs. It completely ignores historical precedents where new efficiencies unlock unforeseen demand and create entirely new industries, a concept similar to the Jevons paradox.