Maybe it’s not worth being ruled by AI anymore

When it comes to discussing artificial intelligence, both camps seem to be the loudest. One believes that artificial intelligence will lead to the collapse of humanity: “the doomed.” The other believes that artificial intelligence is an amazing technology that will change lives: “optimists.”

Those in the “middle” are often overlooked. They are the skeptics, critics, and pragmatists who agree that AI does both good and evil. They view the “never AI” and “AI is magic” camps as reductionist.

It may be a cliche, but AI is polarizing, and I’m not surprised.

It is a technology that is moving quickly, and its effects are varying. AI is simultaneously responsible for thousands losing their jobs, while also simplifying work for some. Chatbot psychosis damages mental health and, in extreme cases, leads to death. However, technology is also fueling medical breakthroughs that can save lives.

Depending on who you ask, this is often either our biggest technological opportunity or our biggest existential threat.

Head to South by southwest Last month, at a massive technology and culture conference held annually in Austin, Texas, I couldn’t decide which camp would fit me exactly. After SXSW, I count myself among the optimists. Even if To the fullest extent One is careful.

It’s perfectly reasonable to feel fear about AI, but the black-and-white thinking of doom is not sustainable. It’s not only exhausting, it’s paralyzing, and it’s a mindset we can’t afford right now. If we really believe that AI will destroy everything, what exactly are we supposed to do? Sit in dread until the end? Wait patiently for everything to fall apart? withdraw? panic? attacks?

This will not lead to better results or a better future. It just leads to more anger, fear, anxiety, and a sense of fatalism that makes work more difficult.

I was talking about these very feelings before attending SXSW. But then I heard something that I think I really needed to hear. In the final moments of the panel led by Spotify co-CEO Gustav Soderstrom, he brought on David Friedberg, CEO of Ohalo, an agricultural technology company, to discuss the future of music, creativity and authenticity in the age of artificial intelligence.

Friedberg offered his views on the tension between techno-pessimism and techno-optimism. He said that this pessimistic attitude makes us worse off. “Fear of tomorrow is what makes everyone turn against each other,” Friedberg said. When we are afraid of what is to come, we blame the people around us.

“It’s very unhealthy. It goes to a dark place,” Friedberg said. Although we still need to be realistic, we must “be optimistic about tomorrow, so that we are not all in conflict with each other all the time.”

I couldn’t agree more. We need a different attitude, one that is not naively positive, but one that is more grounded, more solution-oriented and, dare I say it, hopeful.

Because hope actually does something. It’s transformative.

Maybe it’s a Generation Z analogy, but I can’t help but think of a scene from The Hunger Games, when President Snow sits down with the game’s creator, Seneca Crane, and explains that he needs to hold back hope to obtain subservient tribute and keep society “in line” in this dystopian, tyrannical society. “Hope is the only thing stronger than fear,” he explains, and more hope in society would be motivating.

There is a lot of truth in this. Hope motivates people to form systems, build guardrails, and demand what is best for us all. At the same time, pessimism turns into cynicism. Sarcasm rarely leads to anything good, positive, or worthy.

The truth is that we are already stressed.

People are anxious, divided, and quick to attack and judge. AI discourse reflects this hostility in a disturbing way. In some circles, the use of AI tools and chatbots is viewed as an ethical failure, as if curiosity or excitement about them indicates a lack of ethics, competence and integrity. You may be labeled a bad person just for using technology. This type of framing shuts down any conversations and pits people against each other.

The “if you don’t use AI, you will be left behind” camp is equally vitriolic and unfair. We need, in general, to stop this binary thinking when it comes to AI.

I’m not saying that anxiety or criticism isn’t warranted — believe me, I know that many fears are justified — but when healthy skepticism turns into hostility or blanket condemnation of anyone who engages even slightly with technology, the conversation shifts from constructive criticism to something reactionary and flippant.

I think the main difference is that optimism is not the same as blind acceptance.

We can be optimistic, but we should also remain critical when AI is used for nefarious purposes or in ways that do not serve us. You can be optimistic about the future with AI while still demanding regulation, transparency, and the option to “opt out.” You can use generative chatbots while still considering labor impacts, environmental costs, safety, and risks.

In fact, I believe that ordinary people, like you and me (not those who are financially invested in the success of AI companies), who engage with AI will be in the best position to speak up and fight for responsible use in the coming years. But to do this, we have to be open.

So, I’ll ask: Is it such a bad thing to feel hopeful? Is it bad to find something great about what is being built and what is to come?

Artificial intelligence is here to stay. This does not mean that we have to passively surrender to it, but we have to decide how we will confront it. Will we face it with fear alone or with cautious optimism? Will we collapse under a fatalistic sense of inevitable doom, or will we remember that we have the power to shape our future?