[lbrito]

I've noticed a spike of articles with apparently anti-AI titles, but once you dig in a few paragraphs its actually a "this is just a fair warning from such-and-such, which by no means is an anti-AI bigot, and is actually a fervent AI high priest".

This is getting ridiculous. Articles like this never bring a fair criticism of the many blatant concerns around AI. Its always an astroturfing-esque ad from the AI clergy. The disclaimers ("It’s important to note that Levie is not an AI hater. Quite the opposite.") imply that to even be heard, you must be an AI fanatic - anything else is bigotry and should be ignored.

[RugnirViking]

the problem, as with many topics, is that there are a loud chorus of voices on both sides of people who just aren't engaging with reality as it is on any deep level. You kinda have to cut through that, signal a thoughtful opinion, one who has both concerns and sees potential in the development of the day, to get past that initial hurdle. This is true generally, for most topics.

The next step up from this is signaling engagement on the topic: cite prior influential pieces and what you got from them, where your opinion differs. Move onto some novel data, or novel insights on existing data, draw conclusions that are actually relevant to other reasonable people, and you might have something worth reading.