[aresant]

This is an absolutely classic PR "submarine" effort to reframe the impact of AI

Paul Graham has mandatory essay on this - https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

(1) More than 50% of Americans at this point are more concerned about AI than excited for it - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...

(2) Popular media is feeding into this zeitgeist with headlines like - "Prepare for an AI jobs apocalypse" eg - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/05/14/prepare-for-an-...

(3) There is a bright line between these articles and growing concern / pushback on the development of new data centers with both moratoriums and significant municipal cancellations.

(4) Perhaps more materially the architects of AI are being challenged directly - in April Sam Altman's home was (a) bombed and then (b) shot at and weeks later the entire industry was just taken to task by The Pope! himself calling for acknowledgement of human limitation, grace, and dignity.

(5) Meanwhile Sam and others are reframing including launching a new foundation to "increase quality of life and individual freedoms for people around the world" and pivoting messaging to AI "accelerating everyone in achieving their goals" https://x.com/sama/status/2059677202917331431 & https://x.com/sama/status/2057218997503086888

Is this because the architects don't believe AI will be as disruptive as planned or . . . ?

[Animats]

Right, as noted above, last week The Economist finally said it's real. That's a reversal from their previous position. The Economist likes to look at actuals, which always trail real time, rather than projections. Now they can see it happening in past data.

AI deployment is going much faster than previous industrial revolutions, such as railroads and tractors and even computers. When these things take a generation, they get absorbed. When they take less time than a college education, there's a big jobs problem.

[zymhan]

> There is no evidence yet in the labour-market data of AI destroying many jobs.

Literally from the article https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/05/14/prepare-for-an-...

[conception]

Climate change for the economy. With a similar lack of action before everything is terrible I’m sure.

[a34729t]

Yeah, I feel like it has been decided that "AI apocalypse" talk has been deemed dangerous by the masters of the universe, and thusly the talk needs to be different. Dangerous meaning, of course, how bad things will get.

[DrScientist]

> This is an absolutely classic PR "submarine" effort to reframe the impact of AI

Indeed. Though the Graham article is out of date - he says bloggers have become the authentic voice ( in his own blog... ) - whereas you could argue now that the PR industry doesn't fear bloggers anymore - they have now weaponised them as 'influencers'.

[wcfrobert]

> "Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese." - PG in 2005

Look how low we've stooped in 20 years... Online writing used to be wholly authentic. Now it's like finding a needle in an AI slop haystack.

[karmickoala]

I think it's your (implied) second suggestion. It's interesting that someone here even predicted that AI companies would walk back such statements, I think it was in the Eric Schmidt booing thread.

[watwut]

The most maddening thing is that in our current timeline, the more obviously you lie and bullshit, the more you get rewarded. And winners can lie and bullshit with even less pushback, creating deadly cycle.

[suzzer99]

This has been largely true for the history of tech. The most-hyped technology usually wins out over the best technology.

[disqard]

I think GP is also specifically alluding to a recent surge of feeling like we're living in a post-Truth society now.

[themafia]

Is what the architects believe informed by reality or by dreams of profit? Why even account for them if you can't define this?

[margalabargala]

It'll be disruptive, but not apocalyptic. Some classes of jobs common today will be eliminated, while more will grow. Overall productivity will increase, but it'll suck for the people made obsolete.

Certainly it will not result in most people working fewer hours.

Source: see the adoption of computers/databases across previously pen-and-paper industries 50 years ago. That was more disruptive than this will be.