The AI discourse, or lack of

Why is there not a middle-ground when it comes to AI?

Ai is either the worst thing in the world — burning our planet, making us all dumber, and sucking up all the venture cap money ever created (all true to a degree) or it is the best thing ever, replacing humans and doing the jobs we don’t want to do and leading us to a global renaissance where cancer is cured and people live free off guaranteed basic incomes (less true but with some truth in there as well).

There is no middle. What could the middle look like?

• AI is economically and environmentally expensive with very little return on that investment so far. If we are going to continue to put eggs in that basket, there are many hard truths to acknowledge and problems to solve before humanity sees a truly tangible and wide-spread benefit
• AI will shift jobs — some will go away, others will be created. But the hard truth is that the short-term job market is going to be messy and there will be many winners and losers
• AI can augment our thinking and accelerate our understanding. But it is not a replacement for either

Can we have a reasonable discussion? The AI bubble may burst, or AI might prove to be more valuable and useful than the techo-pessimists would admit. Or, it could stay exactly where it is right now today and never get any better but still change the way we work forever. Let’s have some real conversations about what it can and can not do and what we want it to do and what we do not want it to do.