Only on the pro-AI side. The "it is bad" side is diverse on the reasons why, but being overwhelmed by bad content isn't a monetary concern.

Some "ai is bad" arguments come from the threat of losing one's livelihood, which is a monetary concern.

Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

Black and white thinking is not *limited to* monetary concerns.

> There is too much money involved for any rational debate.

For the Sam Altmans of this world, sure, but how much money is the average AI booster commenting on HN actually standing to make?

If you are just invested in an index fund, a lot. If you are an HN commenter who is more likely invested heavily in tech stocks, much more than a lot.

The other side is the stability of your job or job prospects, and we are adversely affected by that instead.

> If you are an HN commenter who is more likely invested heavily in tech stocks, much more than a lot.

The current state of the stock market is not exactly inspiring confidence about stability over the next few years. Number goes up over sufficient timescales, but if we get a Dotcom-level bust when AI investment slows, there may be a ways to climb back to current levels...

You are still financially affected if AI is a bubble set to burst, just as you are if the boom is set to continue.

I get an extra slice of pizza on fridays for being a good little engineer

Exactly. Also, keep in mind that CEOs have both a personal monetary incentive and a fiduciary duty to do what's in the best interest of their company.

It is batshit insane to me that these days we put a microphone to CEOs, ask them to predict the future, and believe it. The only correct answer that they can say into that microphone is whatever is beneficial to their company, nothing less or more.