As someone who wrote recently wrote the latter post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183527), the more nuanced approach that "AI has good and bad things" is a more real-world reflective approach than an absolute "AI is good" or "AI is bad", and at the least it's more conductive for civil discussion.

"Asbestos has good and bad things" "Assault rifles in the hands of ordinary citizens has good and bad things" "Everyday chemicals in the food supply has good and bad things"

Look, some issues require nuance. Others don't. It's gaslighting to tell activists who consider Big AI to be a net negative for society (by an order of magnitude!) that their position isn't "real-world reflective".

I disagree, but I am the outlier here.

I prefer strong opinions than the academic conclusion that a thing has some good parts and some bad parts. I feel 99% of modern essays are afraid to take a stance about anything, and it makes for uninteresting reading and even less interesting discussion.

To be fair, my issue with the born-again AI skeptic genre of posts is that it's basically clickbait. As if being a skeptic at one point makes your argument stronger, proving that the hype is real, and one should pay attention. It's intellectually dishonest, even if meant in earnest.

(Your post history shows that you have been anything but an AI skeptic. Case in point about intellectual dishonesty.)