Most people who oppose AI don’t oppose it because it’s so good it can replace us. They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work. The first step is to collectively agree that yes, AI is powerful and it can replace us at work. Then we can speak about how to protect livelihood. How does one even have a discussion when the other side doesn’t even believe in the capabilities of AI?

Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted because there are replies literally taking the exact position that I'm saying is more prevalent.

I'm not opposing AI per se since I'm using it, but I'm not blind to the danger and I actually do believe we will be worse than better with it in the long term. Anyway both opinions are right: I think that AI is massively overhyped, and is worse than the AI overlord pretends, but it's still good enough to massively affect the employment, especially with the overhype. I also believe that the privatisation of all human knowledge and culture by a handful of companies is very bad. And finally, the day they make an AI able to reason ( or even before if it happens that enough data is enough to replace reasoning for most tasks) is the day 99.99% of humanity will be considered as useless

There is a bit of a goomba fallacy going on, not everyone who is anti-AI is against it for the same reason. But from my own experience, I find people who are against it for reasons of it devaluing their labor also tend to take the view that it doesn't really work, but this latter half tends to be a bit of motivated reasoning (in the general trend that if you are against something you will be more inclined to believe every argument that it is bad even if some of those arguments are pretty weak).

> They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work.

This was maybe true a year ago, but is certainly not true any more.

The laments these days almost always begin with the assertion that the AI does work.

Mostly it's about funneling even more wealth into the hands of the richest and the incredible environmental penalty.

It certainly works for software, but we may be hitting diminishing returns on software. You may argue it's been a social net negative for a decade.

I 'oppose' Ai for exactly the reasons parent mentions, seems like most common folks over long term will lose much more than they could ever gain from it. Societal loss by definition, on massive scale.

Don't reduce opposition to something you like to some primitive irrational luddites, thats cheap and doesn't represent reality.

"AI is not as good as it is hyped up to be" and "AI is 'good enough' for the overlords to replace some amount of workers, or at least to leverage into depressing their wages significantly and permanently" are not mutually exclusive claims. You don't have to buy the hype to agree that it is dangerous.

A chimp with a gun is not dangerous because of how good a shot he is.