Thread

We're Missing a Key Reason Why Americans Hate AI

19 points · 38 comments · abe94

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

christina97 · 1790956144 · focus · HN ↗
Strawman. It’s very obvious that people are frustrated by the combination of no perceived benefit with all kinds of perceived risks and downsides.
yawnxyz · 1790956229 · focus · HN ↗
cost of living is bc of high price of energy
1. pydry · 1790956337 · focus · HN ↗
  if AI performed as advertised and wasnt just hyped up nonsense it should still be exerting a deflationary pressure on the economy which would compensate for that.
  1. Sevii · 1790956434 · focus · HN ↗
    AI might be putting deflationary pressure on services. But as of now it has only increased the price of commodities like RAM modules.
    pydry · 1790957315 · focus · HN ↗
    oh dont think it's done anything for services and it won't.
    95+% of the companies throwing AI at problems have problems which can't be solved with AI.
    even where it helps it's usually just duck tape wrapped around badly implemented IT systems.
2. Supermancho · 1790956518 · focus · HN ↗
  > cost of living is bc of high price of energy
  That's a small part of it. The largest part of rising costs is mismanagement of the economy, in the past via inflationary debt plus runaway national debt, and the present overspending while kicking the can by borrowing more. The fed has lost control of the economy through rate locks freezing home prices, while inflationary forces drive them higher, and the hyper-consolidation of wealth while minimum wage sits under 10$ an hour. This is ripe for a societal collapse in the next few decades.
  AI is funded by the consolidated wealth, ofc, so it dovetails as a scapegoat.
  1. yawnxyz · 1790975919 · focus · HN ↗
    yeah, and its happening in every country, but a lot of ppl make it feel like its just here
JSR_FDED · 1790956277 · focus · HN ↗
I don’t buy the argument. The article claims Americans hate AI because they were promised “lots of cheap stuff” and it hasn’t arrived.
I’ve just never heard this “promise” repeated by any normies. The only thing I hear over and over is “AI will help create medicines to solve all diseases” (or something to that effect). Even then, I don’t get the sense that anyone is expecting that in the short term.
Isn’t the threat of job destruction a much more likely explanation?
1. seeingnature · 1790956597 · focus · HN ↗
  I agree that I hear the threat of job destruction or 'they scraped the entire web stealing everything and are trying to charge us for re-packaging it for us' argument more than I hear that AI will bring abundance.
  1. watwut · 1790958247 · focus · HN ↗
    I did not even heard that one. I heard that it will make everyone unemployed, already made "humans obsolete" and then I heard some dystopian visions ... literally from industry leaders. And then I found out other industry leaders literally WANT that dystopia to happen.
2. tosapple · 1790956928 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
3. Ancapistani · 1790957057 · focus · HN ↗
  I agree that there's insufficient evidence to believe the premise that "Americans hate AI because it has failed to deliver on its promises".
  Even accepting it for the sake of argument, I don't think it has failed at all. It has completely revolutionized a handful of fields and is increasingly doing so in others.
  Further - it's still very early. Agents have really only begun to take off so far in 2026, and we're still probably 6-12 months from the real uptick in the adoption curve I expect. The first sign of that happening was Manus, followed by the various CUA features of the big players, and more recently: Muse.
  As much as I hate to say it, Meta knocked it out of the park with Muse, to the point that just this morning I bought a 60 gallon (shop-sized) air compressor on Marketplace from a middle-aged couple in rural Missouri who used Muse to coordinate pickup. If that's not a sign that consumer adoption is starting to take off, I don't know what is.
  1. JohnFen · 1790957191 · focus · HN ↗
    > It has completely revolutionized a handful of fields and is increasingly doing so in others.
    It's also good to remember that "revolutionizing" or "disrupting" a thing does not automatically mean that results in something better.
  2. moate · 1790963346 · focus · HN ↗
    Quick question: How many "fields" do you think this is, and what percentage of all "fields" do you think this represents?
    Tech people talking about tech trends spilling outside of tech always gets a bit ivory tower to me...
    Remember VR? Remember how Oculus was going to revolutionize visual interface and change gaming forever? Remember how their acquisition by Meta was the beginning of the Metaverse? Because middle-aged couple from rural Missouri probably doesn't.
    Ancapistani · 1790979116 · focus · HN ↗
    I’d guess maybe a dozen, and acknowledge that “fields” is a fuzzy division to begin with.
    Maybe 5-10% of the overall economy at most, at least in terms of individual jobs. I’d say there’s another ~30% where the capabilities already exist but haven’t yet been adopted in a big way.
    VR isn’t a great example; it was never a technology with commercial utility at this level - and that’s coming from someone with many thousands of hours in VR.
4. AnthonyMouse · 1790958082 · focus · HN ↗
  > Isn’t the threat of job destruction a much more likely explanation?
  There is a better explanation.
  AI summaries have hit media companies pretty hard. People read the summary instead of visiting the site with the article and looking at the ads. So who hates AI the most? The media companies.
  Then they write a lot of hit pieces to turn the public against it (as if that's going to put the genie back in the bottle), which the AI is happy to summarize because it adopts its motivated reasoning from the source material.
  1. moate · 1790958596 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm friends with a lot of creatives and artists. We all genuinely hate the plagiarism machine because 1- it's a plagiarism machine 2- it's killing creative jobs 3- it makes bad "art" and 4- it's killing jobs.
    I don't think people need to be convinced that "this job-stealing robot that makes trash and accelerates climate destruction faster than the internet was already doing" by hit pieces, plenty of us are just proud Luddites (now if you want to talk about hit pieces, that's a movement that got decimated by bad PR)
    AnthonyMouse · 1790960230 · focus · HN ↗
    > We all genuinely hate the plagiarism machine because 1- it's a plagiarism machine 2- it's killing creative jobs 3- it makes bad "art" and 4- it's killing jobs.
    Three of these are what I said to begin with (people consume the AI output instead of patronizing the source) and the fourth is that the quality of the output sucks, which is the part they're actually improving over time -- but that's going to make the first problem worse.
    > I don't think people need to be convinced that "this job-stealing robot that makes trash and accelerates climate destruction faster than the internet was already doing" by hit pieces
    Then why are there so many hit pieces?
    Obvious example, the primary legitimate criticism of data centers is when they continuously operate a gas turbine, but a) most of them don't actually do that, and b) all the same issues are present whenever anyone operates a gas turbine for any other reason, so why is it an article about data centers instead of an article about gas turbines? Why are there articles about data center water use in regions where there isn't significant water scarcity to begin with and data centers aren't the primary consumers of water anyway?
    Likewise, if you actually want to improve the situation then the proposals should be to e.g. get data centers (along with everyone else) to stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity, but instead the proposals are to ban data centers even if they source their electricity from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro.
    Those are the differences that make something a hit piece.
    moate · 1790963056 · focus · HN ↗
    >>Three of these are what I said to begin with (people consume the AI output instead of patronizing the source) and the fourth is that the quality of the output sucks, which is the part they're actually improving over time -- but that's going to make the first problem worse.
    What? The art is not "improving" it's "different". Also, as slop output increases, the models train on more slop. GIGO doesn't seem like it can fix itself if you just robot-centipede it.
    Why so many hit pieces? Because public sentiment and media protectionism align. Your original post seems to be arguing a "wag-the-dog situation", when this is more of a "arm the insurgents" situation imo. Why are there so many people upset about AI data centers when data centers have been around for decades? Idk, go look at the buildout rate and tell me if you notice anything in the trend line changing around the time of AI rollout. And it's not just burning fossil fuels, they also require tons of construction and water usage.
    And again, some people just hate AI. Full Stop. There is nothing good about it to those people. Hell, I barely think the internet was a net good, so trying to tell me that AI is anything other than a capitalist fever dream to finally replace knowledge workers is going to be a hard sell. This isn't because I'm technologically illiterate or incapable of critically reading an article. Also, plenty of people are using the data centers as radicalizing topic to get people to...stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity.
    Your stated thesis was "the better explanation is that the media is out to kill AI/Data centers" and I think misunderstanding how little people outside the tech world actually want AI (you're not alone obviously, it's why we're in this bubble in the first place).
    AnthonyMouse · 1791015461 · focus · HN ↗
    > The art is not "improving" it's "different".
    It's pretty obvious that image generation models are getting better at e.g. producing hands with the expected number of fingers.
    > Your original post seems to be arguing a "wag-the-dog situation", when this is more of a "arm the insurgents" situation imo.
    Then why are the complaints about nonsense things like water usage in regions with no meaningful water scarcity?
    > And it's not just burning fossil fuels, they also require tons of construction
    They're paying to train new people in the trades to do construction, which is good because then we'll have them even after the boom is over and might finally be able to do something about the housing shortage.
    > And again, some people just hate AI. Full Stop. There is nothing good about it to those people.
    Which is fine, but then they should be complaining about AI rather than trumping up nonsense about data centers being "loud" and so on.
    tzs · 1790992397 · focus · HN ↗
    > Obvious example, the primary legitimate criticism of data centers is when they continuously operate a gas turbine, but a) most of them don't actually do that,
    Almost 30% of new AI data centers are self-powered at least for the first few years until they can get a sufficient grid hookup, and at least half of those are using either gas turbines or reciprocating engineers that are way more polluting than gas turbines.
    So you are right...most don't do that. But when a new AI data center is proposed in your area you don't necessarily know if yours will be one of the ~15% that is highly polluting. Even if it is touted as being all grid powered if anything delays getting the grid connection they often turn to temporary onsite power.
    Worse, many of these project are being rushed through approval with barely any time for the public to review and comment on the plans.
    > and b) all the same issues are present whenever anyone operates a gas turbine for any other reason, so why is it an article about data centers instead of an article about gas turbines?
    First, because there are way more AI data center projects currently underway than there are existing data centers. The other things that use gas turbines are using them at about the same rate as they have been for many years.
    Second, those other uses are usually either short term emergency use or they are comply with with pollution controls. For 99% of people an AI data center is the only thing that might operate a bunch of gas turbines with poor pollution control near a residential neighborhood 24/7 for a long time.
    AnthonyMouse · 1791017771 · focus · HN ↗
    > Even if it is touted as being all grid powered if anything delays getting the grid connection they often turn to temporary onsite power.
    This seems like the sort of thing where you shoot yourself in the foot and then don't like that your foot hurts. Who exactly is delaying the grid connection?
    > But when a new AI data center is proposed in your area you don't necessarily know if yours will be one of the ~15% that is highly polluting.
    So pass a law against the high polluting ones in particular and then it won't be.
    > Worse, many of these project are being rushed through approval with barely any time for the public to review and comment on the plans.
    This presumes there should be "plans" being submitted to begin with. There should be laws that say what kind of generators you can and can't operate etc. and anyone should be able to do anything which is in compliance with the rules.
    Requiring pre-approval is the hallmark of a shakedown and the fact that it's so common is one of the reasons everything has become so expensive.
    > First, because there are way more AI data center projects currently underway than there are existing data centers. The other things that use gas turbines are using them at about the same rate as they have been for many years.
    I don't really buy the argument that people who have been doing something wrong for a long time should get a special exception from needing to do the right thing going forward.
    > Second, those other uses are usually either short term emergency use or they are comply with with pollution controls. For 99% of people an AI data center is the only thing that might operate a bunch of gas turbines with poor pollution control near a residential neighborhood 24/7 for a long time.
    You may be underestimating the badness of essentially all of the coal-fired power plants.
    And "near a residential neighborhood" isn't a real qualifier because that's everywhere. If you built a power plant in the Alaskan wilderness then it would be "near a residential neighborhood" because the people who work there would have to live somewhere in the general vicinity of it. Threre are states in New England that can't hit their air pollution goals because they're downwind of coal-fired power plants in West Virginia.
    tzs · 1791060244 · focus · HN ↗
    > This presumes there should be "plans" being submitted to begin with. There should be laws that say what kind of generators you can and can't operate etc. and anyone should be able to do anything which is in compliance with the rules.
    Planning and approval is about more than generators. These projects often want tax breaks or other special treatment in exchange for offering some kind of benefit to the jurisdiction they are in.
    For example Project Jupiter wants a 30 year property tax exemption, instead paying a large amount over that time to support schools and public infrastructure. It involves issuing $165 billion in bonds, and was rushed through approval so fast there wasn't even time to write up the details before the county supervisors voted, let alone time for any public review.
  2. watwut · 1790969552 · focus · HN ↗
    Except that media hyped ai. They did not wrote hit pieces. Altman and Amidei wrote hit pieces.
5. bryanlarsen · 1790958143 · focus · HN ↗
  Many Americans have heard "AI is going to bring massive economic growth". But they associate that with "fat cats getting fatter" rather than "lots of cheap stuff".
bpodgursky · 1790956327 · focus · HN ↗
I'm not convinced Americans really have strong feelings about AI, relative to other issues. The data center pushback seems to be mostly literally about stopping data center construction in their counties. If you build them in Argentina or Norway, they'll stop paying attention.
I think the will be negative if you push an answer out of them, but it's not something Americans are going out to protest and rallying around. There are a LOT of issues people are passively 60% negative on but it doesn't influence their votes.
1. vjvjvjvjghv · 1790956963 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
jwilber · 1790956363 · focus · HN ↗
“Everything costs money, but it shouldn’t with AI.”
…
“Below, for paying subscribers, I’ll explain…”
Not sure how this got to the front page (I have some uncharitable ideas), but I suppose low-to-mid quality writing/copy is the one thing that ai has sent to zero, so that’s convenient now!
exogeny · 1790956370 · focus · HN ↗
This isn't rocket science. People are worried about their jobs, while the top 1% is getting richer and richer and richer.
1. vjvjvjvjghv · 1790956792 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
  1. [deleted] · 1790961891 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
andrewla · 1790956643 · focus · HN ↗
I disagree with the premise. The cited survey says:
```
    Thinking now about AI (A-I), that is artificial intelligence …
    Q28 In general, would you say… (ROTATE) +
      The benefits outweigh the risks of AI ............. 34
      The risks outweigh the benefits of AI ............. 57
      A little of both (VOL)............................. 2
      Not sure .......................................... 7
    + Results shown reflect responses among registered voter
```
That's all well and good, but the question is very broad.
I think when pushed, the reason people hate AI is that a lot of "AI" solutions have been rolled out before the technology was mature. Even now, for end-user facing things most applications are pretty bad, even as the models have gotten more powerful.
You're increasingly pushed to use AI by every online service, and every interaction with retail pushes AI in your face, and importantly, ALL OF THEM ARE JUST TERRIBLE. Amazon has their shopping assistant which is, astonishingly, WORSE than their regular search, which is a hell of a bar.
But people who use ChatGPT or Claude to answer questions on their own are thrilled with the technology. They'll occasionally laugh at the R's in strawberry, or try to torture the AI (this might be more of a teenager thing) but it is remarkable how well-liked it is, as opposed to Google's search-integrated AI for example.
1. JohnFen · 1790957019 · focus · HN ↗
  > You're increasingly pushed to use AI by every online service, and every interaction with retail pushes AI in your face, and importantly, ALL OF THEM ARE JUST TERRIBLE.
  I think there's much truth to this.
  Personally, the only impacts I have personally witnessed or experienced from these technologies have been, on the whole, negative. I mean, I have seen some upside in fairly niche areas, but they are dwarfed by the downsides. At least so far.
  I think a rather large part of the reason (but certainly not the only reason) why this technology is generally viewed in a negative light is because the downsides are actually real and being felt by a very large percentage of people, but the upsides remain mostly in the realm of aspirational statements.
  1. SoftTalker · 1790957738 · focus · HN ↗
    People see AI used to maximize prices and profits, not make life any better for individuals or make life more affordable. Businesses have always tried to do this of course but with AI it's like a superpower. They enable landlords to find the optimal rents and vacancies to maximize their profits. They enable medical clinics to determine that 2.3 minutes is the optimal time for a doctor to spend with a patient. They enable McDonald's to find the optimal price for Big Macs in the local area. Individuals see AI squeezing them for every spare penny in their budget but don't see AI offering them any similar benefits like this (because there's no money to be made doing that).
  2. edoceo · 1790957891 · focus · HN ↗
    I called USAA for a good reason. AI on the phone system, told it I'm calling about "Auto Insurance" so naturally it then asked "is this a checking or savings account". I said "checking" and then I was asked if I'm the landlord or the tenant. "landlord" I replied. Eventually I got to a human who was very confused about my call, transferred me to the right department, which had to bounce me into another AI powered prompt that just kept saying "please repeat" then hung up on me. I made two more attempts, the system behavior was different.
    What should have been a 15 minute process took 80 and is still not resolved, so I'm trying again today.
austinthetaco · 1790956655 · focus · HN ↗
Yeah this feels totally false. I think most hate it because there is already a lot of upset over financial imbalance, particularly that the gap between average worker and ceo has grown exponentially. It just feels to most a way for a few company ceo's to gain even more wealth while the rest of us don't financially benefit from it (and might be hurt by it by losing their jobs).
zirkonit · 1790956947 · focus · HN ↗
I don't understand why people are unhappy when SO MUCH shareholder value is being created.
Since ChatGPT's initial release, the S&P 500's combined market cap has grown by about $33 trillion, roughly doubling. Before that, it took 31 years to add the same amount.
Isn't that what we should all care about, making sure capital holders get more capital? As long as BlackRock's assets under management keep growing, we should be happy. Trickle-down economics will definitely trickle down eventually.
(Since Hacker News is unusually tough on sarcasm, I grudgingly have to end this with /s)
davidgroch · 1790956999 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
kimbernator · 1790957043 · focus · HN ↗
I think that the reaction would be wildly different if there were trust that such a technology would be used to make everyone's lives better. If workers were collectively in charge of deciding how AI ought to change their working lives, I suspect most of them would have opted for reduced working hours & longer weekends over what we are currently seeing.
AI could have revolutionized how many people do their work. It could have given so many people the freedom to spend their lives living, but somehow we used it to make work more intense and more taxing than it ever was before.
bliteben · 1790958116 · focus · HN ↗
Tech pessimism is a real problem and maybe the root problem.
There really seems to be no figure in tech that sets a moral example right now. Not enough people in power calling out obvious crypto scams, not enough holding the line against gambling addictions.
I mean probably the most worshipped tech-ish billionaire (trillionaire?) is a perverted man child with a chip on his shoulder that is either a troll who should never be taken seriously (yet is allowed to be CEO of a company with control over ICBMs) or an outright nazi.
happytoexplain · 1790961719 · focus · HN ↗
I think it's more likely to be the obvious and straightforward reasons that people say out loud, constantly, everywhere.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.