I don't have much sympathy for the "let's wait and see" moderates, but I do think there's a coherent difference between people who have tried AI tools and found some use for them in some limited context and people who go full Howard Hughes with it like John McGasTown or whatever that idiot's name is. To me it feels like an extension of the argument that these so-called AI systems are a normal trchnology. They aren't a harbinger of the end times, whether you interpret that as the singularity or the biblical Armageddon. It's a normal technology that is breaking in normal ways and is breaking society and the economy in the ways we would expect late capitalism to break. If it wasn't this it would probably be something else. Hell, there's still a chance that the wheel turns to "Quantum" or something else after this and we stretch another few years out of that before the music stops.

AI is a bad tool for any given job, and is fundamentally not worth the price that we as a society are paying to let it exist at this scale. If it wasn't being subsidized by capitalists chasing ridiculous returns and bouyed by an economic system structured entirely around giving it to them then there's no way in hell it would have hit this point. But that's not incompatible with people being able to find utility in it in some cases, and I think we lose credibility by treating any admission that someone has found any value in AI products as a confession of unseriousness. That doesn't mean their use isn't still part of the problem, but I'd we frame the critique in terms of "how much would you actually be willing to pay for you 'occasional' use?" It would redirect the discussion away from the subjective "well I found it useful for X" to the more objective question of just how expensive and destructive these things are to operate and how much of those costs are going to have to be subsidized forever if these things are going to stick around.