The AI Industry Is Discovering That the Public Hates It
We believe that this document is fully human-written.
Hacker News Article AI Analysis
Content Label
Human
AI Generated
0%
Human
100%
Window 1 - Human
On April 10, the house of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was attacked
with a Molotov cocktail by 20-year-old Daniel Moreno-Gama. The suspect, who
was arrested the same day, had written a manifesto warning of the
existential threat of artificial intelligence. In his missive, he advocated for
killing the CEOs of AI companies, and he referred to himself as “butlerian jihadist”
on Instagram (a reference to a war against machines in Frank Herbert’s Dune
universe). Three days prior in Indianapolis, an unknown perpetrator
fired 13 shots into the home
of local Democratic councilman Ron Gibson while his 8-year-old son was
home. Neither were hurt, but a note reading “No Data Centers” was left on the
doorstep. Gibson had lent his support for a potential data center project in
his district. There have not yet been any arrests in the case.Both incidents were frightening examples of abhorrent,
politically motivated violence. But the reaction, at least on social media, seemed to revel in
it. The mood exemplified by inflamed Instagram commenters on these incidents was further reinforced on April 13 when Stanford University
released its annual
Artificial Intelligence Index, which provides a yearly snapshot of where
the industry stands. In the report, one of the most standout contrasts was the
gulf between what AI experts predict for AI’s future and the public’s
reaction to the industry’s designs. On jobs, 73 percent of experts were
positive about the long-term effect, with 69 percent positive about the
long-term effect on the economy. Among the public, those numbers were 23 percent
and 21 percent, respectively, with nearly two-thirds of Americans thinking that
AI would lead to fewer jobs over the next 20 years. A separate survey, released in March
2026 by Gallup, also showed a sharp increase in negative attitudes toward
AI among Gen Z. According to the poll, the percentage of Gen Zers who felt
excited about AI had dropped from 36 percent to 22 percent, while the number
who felt angry about it increased from 22 percent to 31 percent.
Window 2 - Human
These numbers and actions point in the same direction: a
rapidly growing populist backlash toward AI, which tech journalist Jasmine Sun defined as “a
worldview in which AI is viewed not only
as a normal technology, but an elite political project to be resisted … a thing
manufactured by out-of-touch billionaires and pushed onto an unwilling public.”Naturally, violence is never an answer, nor is it a politically effective
tactic. But you also cannot ignore how the tone-deaf public messaging of the AI
industry has helped to contribute to this reaction.For years, CEOs like Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei have
very publicly oscillated between two suboptimal scenarios. In one, AI exterminates
humanity with a biological super-weapon. In the other, AI
either takes your job entirely or creates an economy where your only option
is to downshift
into the gig economy. These pitches may be perfect for attracting attention at
tech conferences or funding rounds, but they utterly ignore the daily concerns
of regular Americans, at a time when the job market (especially for newer
graduates) is incredibly
shaky; economic gains are concentrated
among the top 0.1 percent; and the price
of food, housing, and, now, gasoline all continue to skyrocket. This is the environment in which the AI industry is very
publicly asking for hundreds
of billions of dollars in continued investment, as well as a massive data center
buildout that has had significant effects on
local populations’ electrical bills. For example, in Virginia, the epicenter of the U.S.
data center boom, residential electrical rates have been projected to increase
by up to 25 percent by 2030. These costs could be ignored, or even accepted, if there was a clear idea of how precisely AI would streamline and improve the workplace—or
offer any tangible public benefit significant enough to make these underlying
trade-offs acceptable. But the answers to these questions remain extremely
tenuous. According to a February 2026 paper by the National Bureau of Economic
Research, 80
percent of companies that have begun actively using AI have reported no
impact on company productivity.
Window 3 - Human
A separate, widely cited 2025 MIT study
revealed that 95 percent of corporate AI
pilot programs received zero return. Even within tech and coding, one of the areas where AI is
reported to have the most promise, there’s the question of whether the
productivity gains reported can be trusted. In a provocative GitHub
post, machine-learning engineer Han-Chung Lee argued that even rosy
internal numbers that do show AI-assisted productivity gains are
suspect, as they’re produced to hit adoption targets no one can effectively
audit.This isn’t to say that AI doesn’t show immense and possibly
incredibly valuable potential, especially bearing in mind that ChatGPT (which
can be considered the first mainstream demonstration of AI technology) was only
launched in November 2022. It’s natural for new technology to have a bumpy
adoption period as both users and designers stress-test its strengths and limitations
in the real world. But the gap between how AI companies talk about themselves
and how the general public has experienced the technology (and its side
effects) has grown into a chasm, and now the results of these divisions are
starting to show; data
center projects canceled or delayed; an industry that is less
popular than ICE or Donald Trump; and now, violent acts against AI
leaders. In its defense, Big Tech has realized the extent of the
potential problems that AI could pose to regular Americans. Earlier in April,
for example, Open AI released an Industrial
Policy White Paper, which included suggestions such as the creation of a
Public Wealth Fund for all Americans to share in AI growth, revamping social
safety nets, and investing in real-time measurement of how AI affects work. In
January, Microsoft released a Community-First
AI Infrastructure Initiative, promising to subsidize utility rates and
minimize water use in communities where it was building data centers. But it’s one thing for AI companies to make lofty promises
in press releases, and another thing entirely for them to follow through
consistently on equitable AI development, even when it means undercutting
their business advantage. Here again there is a gap between public statements and
on-the-ground facts. Microsoft’s Community-First Initiative sounds great but does
not have any form of independent accountability mechanism built in.
Window 4 - Human
OpenAI’s
new white paper signals a move toward progressive tech policy, but its
president, Greg Brockman, has funneled millions into a SuperPAC opposing
state-level AI regulation efforts. OpenAI is also currently
supporting a state legislature bill in Illinois (Senate Bill 3444) that would shield it from
large-scale harms caused by the AI models (Anthropic, for its part, opposes the
bill). These examples underscore the pattern that Ronan Farrow
noted in his recent New
Yorker exposé about Sam Altman—that he would regularly publicly support
one position and then quickly reverse course when it seemed like doing so would
benefit his company. If Altman, Amodei, and their Big Tech peers want to rebuild
public trust and create a genuine technology that benefits the public, then
the path forward isn’t another white paper or postulating about the existential
risks of their technology. It’s sustained, verifiable action: genuine
transparency about what their products can do, a willingness to accept
meaningful regulation and responsibility even at financial cost, and real
democratic input from communities on the growth of data centers. Otherwise, this
burgeoning AI populism movement will continue to scale up—as will the
potential for violence that accompanies it.