Why? Because their messaging is not addressing the general public, but their investors. And they've realized that their investors are really receptive to panic-baiting (we'll get rid of jobs, ASI is right around the corner, p(doom) = 25% etc).

▲

whilenot-dev 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This doesn't answer GPs question, though: Why is a panic-baiting "we'll get rid of jobs" better than some gain-baiting "we'll make your workforce 10x more productive"? Why is panic a better response to investors than gain?

We got:

- A: "AI helps in automating tedious tasks"

- B: "Your workforce can be more motivated and productive"

- C: "You can do more with fewer people"

Why not advertise A → B, stop there and let their customers do the reasoning for B → C themselves? Why go straight to a hyperbolic A → C and swallow all the hate that comes with it?

My own presumption is that we got that strange fetish for optimization (C) and just don't trust our own ambitions to make the potential gain in productivity (B) work any other way.

	▲	watwut 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It goes back to Warren Buffett quote "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." That is what it is. I thought it was just funny but wrong comment, but lately realized Buffett was 100% right all along.