[seadan83]

I would quibble a bit with some of your examples, but I think the points are conveyed well.

Though, it does seem ironic. A skeptic is someone that demands convincing evidence before believing an assertion. "AGI is around the corner", "self driving will replace human drivers", "don't learn how to code", "AI will replace developers", "AI cars will eliminate car accidents." The skeptics are the ones simply asking for evidence that any of that is true. A system that can barely count the 'R's in strawberry is supposed to be AGI in 3 years from now?? Let alone deliver on any of those other promises? Incredulity aside, let us see the evidence for any of it.

Though, those that are AI nay-sayers; that say AI will be a bad thing - they are not skeptics. They are making their own assertion. Namely that AI will be used as a crutch - that the lack of a slog will be a detriment. That is a claim, not skepticism. So, just ironic to be skeptical of the 'skeptics' and the lack of evidence from the 'skeptics' is used to dismiss the 'skeptics'.