I can't locate any nuance in that article. Hyperbole, panic and many unfounded assumptions serving those first two, easy.

Good for clicks and getting an extremely manipulatable public coming back for more, I guess.

Historically, whenever we have created new technology that is amazing and impactful but that all of the positives/negatives are not fully understood, it's worked out fine. If we want to be scientific about it, that's our observable knowledge here.