The public AI debate is a false dichotomy between 'hype folks' and 'doomers.' Both camps operate from the premise that AI is or will be supremely powerful. This shared assumption crowds out a more realistic critique that current AI is a flawed, over-sold product that isn't truly intelligent.

While mitigating catastrophic AI risks is critical, the argument for safety can be used to justify placing powerful AI exclusively in the hands of a few actors. This centralization, intended to prevent misuse, simultaneously creates the monopolistic conditions for the Intelligence Curse to take hold.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AI leaders often message their technology with a dual warning: it will automate jobs and poses existential risks. This 'cursed microwave' pitch, as Noah Smith describes it, is a terrible value proposition that alienates the public and provides ammunition for regulators pushing to halt AI development.

Leaders at top AI labs publicly state that the pace of AI development is reckless. However, they feel unable to slow down due to a classic game theory dilemma: if one lab pauses for safety, others will race ahead, leaving the cautious player behind.