Maybe It’s Not Worth Being an AI Doomer Anymore

When it comes to discussing artificial intelligence, two camps seem to be the strongest. Some believe that AI will cause the collapse of humanity: the “condemned”. The other thinks AI is an incredible, life-changing technology: the “optimists.”

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

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

It is a technology that evolves quickly and whose impacts are uneven. AI is simultaneously responsible for thousands losing their jobs, while streamlining the jobs of some. Chatbot psychosis harms mental health and, in extreme cases, leads to death. Yet technology also enables medical breakthroughs that could save lives.

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

Heading to South by Southwest last month, a massive tech and culture conference held annually in Austin, Texas, I wouldn’t have been able to pin down exactly which camp I fell into. After SXSW, I count myself among the optimists. Even if a extremely careful.

It is entirely reasonable to be afraid of AI, but the black-and-white thinking that permeates pessimism is not sustainable. It’s not only exhausting, it’s paralyzing, a state of mind we can’t afford right now. If we sincerely believe that AI is going to destroy everything, what exactly are we supposed to do? Sit in fear until the end? Waiting for tingles and needles for everything to fall apart? Withdraw? Panic? Attack?

This will not lead to better results or a better future. This only breeds more anger, fear, anxiety, and a sense of fatalism that makes action even more difficult.

I was dwelling on these same emotions before attending SXSW. But then I heard something I thought I really needed to hear. In the final moments of a session led by Spotify co-CEO Gustav Söderström, he brought in David Friedberg, CEO of Ohalo, an agricultural technology company, to discuss the future of music, creativity and authenticity in the age of AI.

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

“It’s very unhealthy. It’s going to a dark place,” Friedberg said. Although we must remain realistic, we must “be optimistic about tomorrow, so that we are not constantly at loggerheads.”

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

Because hope actually does something. It’s transformative.

Maybe it’s a Gen Z analogy, but I can’t help but think of a scene from The Hunger Games, when President Snow sits down with the game creator, Seneca Crane, and explains that he must curb hope in order for the tributes to be submitted and keep society “in line” in this authoritarian, dystopian society. He explains that “hope is the only thing stronger than fear,” and that greater hope in society would be a catalyst.

There is so much truth in this. Hope motivates people to shape systems, build guardrails, and demand better for us all. Pessimism, on the other hand, turns into cynicism. And cynicism rarely leads to anything good, positive, or worthy.

And really, we’re already tense.

People are anxious, divided, and quick to attack and pass judgment. The AI ​​discourse reflects this antagonism in worrying ways. In some circles, the use of AI tools and chatbots is seen as a moral failing, as if curiosity or enthusiasm about it signals a lack of ethics, competence, and integrity. You might be labeled a bad person just for using technology. This kind of framing shuts down any conversation and turns people against each other.

The “if you don’t use AI, you’ll be left behind” camp is equally biting and unfair. We need to end this binary thinking about AI in general.

I’m not saying that unease or criticism isn’t warranted—trust me, I know many fears are warranted—but when healthy skepticism turns into hostility or general condemnation of anyone who engages even lightly with technology, the conversation shifts from constructive criticism to something reactionary and volatile.

I think the key distinction is this: optimism is not the same thing as blind acceptance.

We can remain hopeful, but we must 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 of AI while still demanding regulation, transparency, and an “opt-out” option. You can use generative chatbots while being deeply attentive to their labor impacts, environmental costs, security, and risks.

In fact, I think that ordinary people, like you and me (not those who financially invest in the success of AI companies), who engage with AI will be best placed to speak out and fight for responsible use in the years to come. But to achieve this, we must be open-minded.

So, I’m going to ask this: Is it so bad to have hope? Is it bad to find something fascinating about what is being built and what is going to happen?

AI is here to stay. This does not mean that we must passively submit to it, but we must decide how we are going to deal with it. Will we face it with fear alone or with a sense of cautious optimism? Will we collapse under the fatalistic sense of inevitable catastrophe, or will we remember that we have the power to shape our future?