ClaimArticle
Both technology skeptics and technology optimists have a consistent historical track record of being wrong about the social and strategic effects of new technologies, so confident predictions about AI's impact deserve skepticism.
Matthew Tokson argues history shows both AI skeptics and optimists are likely wrong, citing nuclear fission denial, Krugman's fax-machine comparison for the internet, and climate change denial as cautionary parallels. ✦ AI generated
Matthew Tokson · Import AI · 2026-06-29 · original ↗
Throughout history, optimists have often been wrong about the social ramifications of new technologies or the strategic benefits of building new weapons. Skeptics have often underestimated the likelihood of novel innovations and their impacts on humanity.
Read full article ↗excerpt · fair-use quotation
Around this claim
This moment responds to
rebuts → In any existential conflict, the competitive advantage goes to whichever state removes humans from decision-making loops fastest and hands control to AI, meaning human control over states and decisions will inevitably erode.Fernando Borretti · Import AIrebuts → Rebuilding an entire high-expertise industry like semiconductor fabrication without its human workers could take decades, because so much know-how is tacit knowledge that isn't captured in machines or textbooks.Timothy B. Lee · Import AIrebuts → Tacit knowledge is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier, because AI systems could be trained via reinforcement learning on that knowledge, or could become generally intelligent enough to figure it out themselves through experimentation.Ajeya Cotra · Import AI