Because nobody is saying

"Clearly all articles about AI should be about how it will turn the world into a utopia where everyone is well-fed, healthy and able to do whatever they want with their time and for god's sake, no one mention the massive ecological catastrophe they're making a huge contribution to."

The guy you're responding to is criticizing the article for being *"*one-sided and pessimistic" and your response is basically "you just want everyone to fellate AI corpos all day"? That's just another one-sided take, for one, and for two, the only time I ever hear it is from comments like yours.

I'm tired of reading articles that, rather than having any semblance of nuance, opt for one of the two extreme ends of the debate because they know it'll get them more clicks, even if it's at the cost of further polarizing the internet.

And in the comments it's as if people believe the only valid takes are the ones handed down to us in the media written by corporate shills and emotionally charged creators. It's possible to think AI is a cool step forward for computer science and that it's severely flawed in its current state. It's possible to think that corporate data scraping has raised major privacy concerns and we should train AI more ethically. It's possible to think AI is consuming a concerning amount of power and resources and we should find better ways to do it.

But the lack of nuance is better for engagement 🙄