# The Rise of AI Populism and Violent Resistance

**Podcast:** The AI Daily Brief (Formerly The AI Breakdown): Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis
**Published:** 2026-04-15

## Transcript

Today on the AI Daily Brief why AI Populism is turning violent and what we can do about it.
The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI.
Alright, friends, quick announcements before we dive in.
First of all, thank you to today's sponsors KPMG, Blitzy, Zencoder, and Drata.
To get an ad free version of the show, go to Patreon.com slash AI Daily Brief, or you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts.
If you are interested in learning about sponsoring the show, send us a note at sponsors at AI DailyBrief.ai.
Lastly, I am back from travel and had intended today to be a normal episode, headlines main, etc., but the discourse and discussion around the multiple attacks on Sam Altman's house over the weekend, I think creates a context to zoom out in a way that I believe is unfortunately important right now.
We will be back with our regular format tomorrow, and I've got some great episodes this week coming up about changes to Claude Code, how people are building things in new ways with AI.
So we will be back very shortly with our operator centric content.
But for now, let's get into what happened this weekend.
Today we are doing an episode which, on the one hand, I wished I would never have to do, and on the other, has for some time felt increasingly inevitable.
At 4 a.m.
on Friday morning, a man threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's home.
The gate was set ablaze, and there were no injuries.
It was mostly just terrifying.
Suspect Daniel Moreno Gamma was later arrested outside the Open AI headquarters, threatening to burn the place down to the ground.
Police said that the 20-year old Moreno Gamma was in possession of an anti-AI manifesto, a jug of kerosene, and a lighter at the time of his arrest.
When the FBI raided his Texas home on Monday morning, they found a written document that police said not only displayed anti-AI sentiment, but also which included the names and addresses of other AI executives, investors, and board members.
Prosecutors have declined to name the other people on the list.
An affidavit said that the written document identified views opposed to artificial intelligence and discussed the purported risk AI poses to humanity.
The manifesto included the line, If I am going to advocate for others to kill and commit crimes, then I must lead by example and show that I am fully sincere in my message.
Moreno Gamma had been posting anti-AI and X-Risk related messages and content on Substack Instagram, and as part of the pause AI Discord, where he posted under the name Butlerian jihadist.
One post from December said, If we do nothing very soon, we will die, I'm very sure of that.
A Substack essay in January discussed the existential risk posed by AI executives that, quote, appear to lack strong morals.
In that essay, he wrote, These people are almost nothing like you.
They are most likely sociopathic slash psychopathic, and in the case of Altman, consistently reported to be a pathological liar.
Prosecutors claim Moreno Gamma traveled from Texas this month to carry out the attack.
In court on Monday, Moreno Gamma was charged with attempted murder alongside attempted damage and destruction of property by means of explosives and possession of an unregistered firearm, among other charges.
There are 11 charges in total with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Prosecutors said the attack would be treated as an act of domestic terrorism if the purpose was to instigate a change in public policy or coerce government officials.
This was also not the only violent attack focused on Sam Altman and his family this weekend.
Amanda Tom and Mohammed Tariq Hussein were arrested for allegedly firing a gun at Sam Altman's home on Sunday morning.
Unlike Moreno Gamma, who traveled from Texas, this pair lived nearby.
On Friday evening, Altman tweeted, I wrote this early this morning and I wasn't sure if I would actually publish it, but here it is.
He starts by saying, Here's a photo of my family.
I love them more than anything.
Images have power, I hope.
Normally we try to be pretty private, but in this case I am sharing a photo in the hopes that it might dissuade the next person from throwing a Molotov cocktail at our house no matter what they think about me.
The first person did it last night at 3 45 a.m.
in the morning.
Thankfully it bounced off the house and no one got hurt.
Words have power too.
There was an incendiary article about me a few days ago.
Someone said to me yesterday they thought it was coming at a time of great anxiety about AI and it made things more dangerous for me.
I brushed it aside.
Now I am awake in the middle of the night and pissed and thinking that I have underestimated the power of words and narratives.
This seems like as good of a time as any to address a few things.
First, what I believe.
Working towards prosperity for everyone, empowering all people, and advancing science and technology are moral obligations for me.
AI will be the most powerful tool for expanding human capability and potential that anyone has ever seen.
Demand for this tool will be essentially uncapped, and people will do incredible things with it.
The world deserves huge amounts of AI, and we must figure out how to make it happen.
It will not all go well.
The fear and anxiety about AI is justified.
We are in the process of witnessing the largest change to society in a long time and perhaps ever.
We have to get safety right, which is not just about aligning a model.
We urgently need a society wide response to be resilient to new threats.
This includes things like new policy to help navigate through a difficult economic transition in order to get to a much better future.
AI has to be democratized.
Power cannot be too concentrated.
Control of the future belongs to all people and their institutions.
AI needs to empower people individually, and we need to make decisions about our future and the new rules collectively.
I do not think it is right that a few AI labs would make the most consequential decisions about the shape of our future.
Adaptability is critical.
We are all learning about something new very quickly.
Some of our beliefs will be right and some will be wrong, and sometimes we will need to change our mind quickly as the technology develops and society evolves.
No one understands the impact of superintelligence yet, but they will be immense.
From there, he also does a set of personal reflections.
He argues that conflict adversity has been a huge problem and admits mistakes in how he's handled things in the past.
He writes, I am a flawed person in the center of an exceptionally complex situation, trying to get a little better each year, always working for the mission.
He also notes, I am also very aware that open AI is now a major platform, not a scrappy startup, and we need to operate in a more predictable way now.
It has been an extremely intense, chaotic, and high pressure few years.
Third, he ends on what he calls some thoughts about the industry.
My personal takeaway from the last several years and take on why there has been so much Shakespearean drama between the companies in our field comes down to this.
Once you see AGI, you can unsee it.
It has a real ring of power dynamic to it and makes people do crazy things.
I don't mean that AGI is the ring itself, but instead the totalizing philosophy of being the one to control AGI.
The only solution I can come up with, he continues, is to orient towards sharing the technology with people broadly and for no one to have the ring.
The two obvious ways to do this are individual empowerment and making sure democratic systems stay in control.
It is important that the democratic process remains more powerful than companies.
Laws and norms are going to change, but we have to work within the democratic process, even though it will be messy and slower than we'd like.
We want to be a voice and a stakeholder, but not to have all the power.
A lot of the criticism of our industry comes from sincere concern about the incredibly high stakes of this technology.
This is quite valid, and we welcome good faith criticism and debate.
I empathize with anti-technology sentiments, and clearly technology isn't always good for everyone.
But overall, I believe technological progress can make the future unbelievably good for your family and mine.
While we have that debate, we should de escalate the rhetoric and tactics and try to have fewer explosions and fewer homes, figuratively and literally.
Now the whole combination of all of this, the actions themselves, the arrests, the follow-up, set off an absolute firestorm of debate all over the internet, all over X and many other channels as well.
One key strand of the discourse was to blame the pause AI and X Risk folks for effectively inciting violence.
This opinion, for example, was found in a substack post by the dossier's Jordan Schachtel, who wrote, AI doomers built a radical ideology, now their followers are acting on it.
The movement that warned AI would end humanity has spawned a new wave of political violence.
He writes, For years a well-funded and pedigreed coalition of effective altruist-aligned intellectuals in Silicon Valley, we can call them AI doomers, have prosecuted a very specific argument.
Their claim is not that AI is annoying or economically disruptive or bad for teenagers on social media.
Their claim is existential, extinction level.
The Doomer funded Center for AI Studies, now famous 2023 statement, signed by hundreds of AI researchers and executives, placed AI risk alongside nuclear weapons as a priority risk.
He then goes on to give a number of examples and comes to this point.
Here is the paradox those thinkers have never adequately resolved.
If the threat is truly existential, then what moral framework permits you to only write strongly worded op eds and conference circuit speeches?
It is a serious philosophical problem baked into the utilitarian ethics that most EAs and AI safety advocates openly embrace.
The larger the harm, the more extreme the justified response.
If their probability estimate for AI caused extinction is even modestly non-trivial, and they are a consistent utilitarian, the math starts generating conclusions that civilization-minded people should find alarming.
Petitions and policy advocacy are preferred, sure, but when those institutions are deemed to have failed, when the compute keeps scaling and the AI companies keep shipping, at what point does democratic incrementalism become a moral abdication?
Now from there, he basically argues that while leading AI safetyists have, in his words, commendably condemned the violence, they haven't answered that core question about the implications of their words.
And it is absolutely true that many, many prominent voices have condemned the violence.
Jeffrey Ladish writes, If you would ever consider trying to hurt someone to slow AI progress, please do not effing do it.
If you have any respect for me whatsoever, I implore you to remember that everyone else trying to prevent human extinction will face a harder battle if you resort to violence.
It is legitimately scary to live in a world where superintelligence may be around the corner.
It can feel crushing, I get that.
And also, it is almost always possible to make the situation worse and to make the world worse.
Don't do it.
There are actual ways to help.
You can call your congressperson, you can write compelling arguments, make videos, peacefully protest, talk to your friends and family.
Everyone has the power to unilaterally hurt their cause by doing something stupid.
Please refrain.
David Kruger writes: I denounce violent attacks on AI researchers or politicians, such as the recent Molotov cocktail thrown at Sam Altman and the bullets fired into the house of a local councilman supporting data center development.
Terrorism against AI supporters would backfire in many ways.
It would help critics discredit the movement, be used to justify government crackdowns on dissent, and lead to AI being securitized, making public oversight and international cooperation much harder.
Nate Suarez, the co-author of the certainly not provocatively named, if anyone builds it, everyone dies, why superhuman AI would kill us all, wrote, if you start killing in the name of a cause, you make leaders feel like cowards caving to terrorists if they support that cause.
Screw that.
Those signing a treaty to stop the AI race would be heroes saving the world and should feel like it.
Cut out this violence.
The PAS AI group, that was a home to a number of the writings of Daniel Moreno Gamma, wrote that they unequivocally condemned the attacks on Sam Altman's home and all forms of violence, intimidation, and harassment.
And yet some just aren't buying it, feeling as Jordan did in that essay we read an excerpt from before, that political violence is the inescapable conclusion of the X-Risk message.
Accelerate Harder writes, When you tell people that what someone is up to is going to kill everyone they know and love, including their children, it doesn't require careful reasoning to reach the question of violence.
It kicks in at a brainstem level.
This is my criticism of the AI safety community.
I obviously can't change their beliefs, but many claim they do not want violence.
I don't think their actions thus far really support that claim, because their objections to violence primarily relest on a professed belief that violence will be ineffective.
That is a cost-benefit analysis and cost benefit analysis suggests you might be open to violence in the future if the situation changes.
That is different from not wanting violence.
Now, from here, this gets deeper into the question of the responsibility thought leaders bear for the actions of people that follow their thoughts, which is way outside the scope of the show.
What I'm trying to do here is just give you a sense of where people's heads are at in and around this conversation.
This was, however, not the only strand in the conversation.
Some folks, particularly a number of journalists, took issue with what they thought was the implication in Sam Altman's blog post that the Roan and Farrow New Yorker article had some direct connection with the violence then perpetrated against him and his family.
Transformer editor Shaquille Hashim writes, What happened to Sam Altman and his family is really awful.
It is hard to reconcile his call to de escalate the rhetoric and tactics, however, with his implication that a piece of critical journalism was responsible for this.
Altman actually responded to that and said, This was a bad word choice, and I wish I hadn't used it.
It has been a tough day, and I'm not thinking the most clearly that I ever have, which to his credit, Shaquille appreciated.
Still another strand of media discourse was that especially when it came to the second attack, maybe they bore some responsibility.
Rune from OpenAI wrote, Maybe the media shouldn't consistently include full identifying addresses for some reason when reporting on attacks.
Daniel F.
added, relatedly, they shouldn't include pictures of the houses either.
Maybe it was safe to do so even a few years ago, but AI is now pretty good at determining locations from photos, even when it's not obvious that this would be feasible.
Pirate Wires, Mike Solano, went a little bit farther.
Why TF are we sharing images of Sam's home in the press?
At this point in time in coverage of what looks like may have been a second attack, how could you possibly justify this?
There is zero newsworthiness justification.
If following two attempts on his life you are sharing photos of his home online and describing where it is, you are contributing to the violence directly, and I am going to interpret this as your goal.
And yet others, even from within the AI space, were willing to point out that it was possible that the AI industry's own rhetoric wasn't really helping things either.
Cree Beauvoir writes, During the first attack, we lectured the pause AI community on how their words hold weight and lead to violence, but we didn't think then to feel the weight of our own.
Instead of showing people how AI will make life better, how it will give us all just a little bit more time and life for the things we really care about, how it will fix our broken government or healthcare systems.
We've spent the last few years telling people the story of AI is one where AGI makes humans unnecessary, that everyone will lose the jobs they worked so hard at to barely get by, and making jokes about the permanent underclass.
And we wonder why the people fear us and revolt.
Buco Capital Bloke writes, basically every one on one in office hours I had this week was people outright asking if they'll be replaced by AI.
From ICs up to directors, everyone's scared.
This is an existential issue and mistake for the labs.
I know they're trying to juice their IPO, they'll regret the doomerism.
Casey Newton made a similar argument.
In a piece called Sam Altman's Second Thoughts, he asks, OpenAI's CEO is asking the public to lower the temperature on AI, but who turned it up in the first place?
His conclusion, ultimately, the public's disdain for AI was not invented by journalists.
It was co-created by the people building the systems, who have consistently told us that it is imminent and dangerous, that the public has now begun to take them at their word should not surprise them.
Isn't that what they've been asking for all along?
All of these are important conversations to be had, but I think that in general, they are a little bit missing the forest for the trees.
It would be a grave mistake, in my estimation, to view everything that is happening in the isolation of the AI industry itself.
Instead, I believe that AI has become the recipient of a much bigger trend.
That trend is a pipeline from real economic pain to even greater perceived inequality to political violence.
The TLDR is that the discourse on X about pause AI has very little to do with the larger meta issues and context in which this violence is happening.
It is certainly the case that AI X-risk creates something of a perfect boogeyman.
It is by definition existential.
It is also unfalsifiable, in that it is an argument that is completely about the future and that involves extrapolating a trend line rather than reviewing disprovable evidence that exists right now.
Certainly the way the AI industry has chosen to communicate feeds into a general sense of the hugeness of the issue.
But in no way is this type of political violence isolated, and frankly, for anyone who's been paying attention, a lot of it is very reminiscent of the way that the discourse has evolved over the last couple years.
Paula on X wrote, I didn't realize how bad it was until I saw this comment section on Instagram.
She shared a set of comments from a story about the attack, each of which had between hundreds and thousands of likes, and which featured such gems as, please, nobody, throw another Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's house, which is pictured here, that would be easy to find since you now know which neighborhood it's in.
703 likes.
Where can we support their bail fund?
3,357 likes.
I hope that Molotov is okay, 4,631 likes.
Now one might be tempted to write that off as the rambling of the degenerate side of the internet, or perhaps even Russian bot farms trying to sow discord.
And sure, maybe that's a part of it.
But it is not the first time that we've seen something like this.
Think back a few years ago to when the Titan submersible imploded.
In the Los Angeles Times, Jessica Gelt wrote a piece, as those aboard the Titan submersible suffered, social media laughed.
She writes Gleeful best describes the tenor of many posts, which include making fun of the video game controller used to pilot the Titan, laughing at the billionaires inside the submersible, jokes about the effects of lack of oxygen on the human psyche, or substituting fart sounds for the knocking sounds that rescuers apparently heard underwater.
We saw a similar type of glee from some places in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, although the debate there quickly turned to whether people could be fired for expressing those views on social media.
Still, maybe the most obvious example of this is Gen Z turning Luigi Mangioni, the accused assassin of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, into some kind of folk hero.
According to an Emerson poll that was conducted in the same month after that crime, 41% of 18 to 29-year-olds in the U.S.
agreed that it was somewhat or completely acceptable to kill a CEO.
Now, when it comes to AI specifically, people have been worried about this for some time now.
Counterterrorism think tank The Sufion Center, which is a respected counterterrorism think tank, published an assessment in November of last year titled, As Data Centers Proliferate, Anti-AI Resistance has the potential to turn violent.
The research documented a spike in online threats against AI infrastructure since early 2024.
And while the attacks on Sam Altman seemed to be about bigger AI safety considerations than just AI data centers, they weren't the only political violence we got last week.
Four days before Altman's attack, Indianapolis City Councilman Ron Gibson had 13 rounds fired at his front door with a note reading No Data Centers Left Under his doormat.
Alright, folks, quick pause.
Here's the uncomfortable truth.
If your enterprise AI strategy is we bought some tools, you don't actually have a strategy.
KPMG took the harder route and became their own client zero.
They embedded AI and agents across the enterprise, how work gets done, how teams collaborate, how decisions move, not as a tech initiative, but as a total operating model shift.
And here's the real unlock.
That shift raised the ceiling on what people could do.
Humans stayed firmly at the center while AI reduced friction, surfaced insight, and accelerated momentum.
The outcome was a more capable, more empowered workforce.
If you want to understand what that actually looks like in the real world, go to www.kpmg.us slash AI.
That's www.kpmg.us slash AI.
You've tried in IDE co-pilots.
They're fast, but they only see local silos of your code.
Leverage these tools across a large enterprise code base and they quickly become less effective.
The fundamental constraint?
Context.
Blitzy solves this with infinite code context, understanding your code base down to the line level dependency across millions of lines of code.
While co-pilots help developers write code faster, Blitzy orchestrates thousands of agents that reason across your full code base.
Allow Blitzy to do the heavy lifting, delivering over 80% of every sprint autonomously with rigorously validated code.
Blitzy provides a granular list of the remaining work for humans to complete with their co-pilots.
Tackle feature additions, large-scale refactors, legacy modernization, greenfield initiatives, all 5x faster.
See the Blitzy difference at Blitzy.com.
That's B L I T Z Y.com.
So coding agents are basically solved at this point.
They're incredible at writing code.
But here's the thing nobody talks about.
Coding is maybe a quarter of an engineer's actual day.
The rest is stand-ups, stakeholder updates, meeting prep, chasing context across six different tools.
And it's not just engineers.
Sales spends more time assembling proposals than selling.
Finance is manually chasing subscription requests.
Marketing finds out what shipped two weeks after it merged.
Zencoder just launched Zenflow work.
It takes their orchestration engine, the same one already powering coding agents, and connects it to your daily tools.
Jira, Gmail, Google Docs, Linear, Calendar, Notion.
It runs goal-driven workflows that actually finish.
Your stand-up brief is written before you sit down.
Review cycle coming up, it pulls six months of tickets and writes the prep doc.
Now you might be thinking, didn't OpenClaud try to do this?
It did, but it has come with a whole host of security and functional issues, which can take a huge amount of time to resolve.
Zencoder took a different approach.
SOC2 Type 2 certified, curated integrations, tighter security perimeter, enterprise grade from day one, model agnostic and works from Slack or Telegram.
Try it at Zenflow.free.
Let's face it, if you're leading GRC at your organization, chances are you're drowning in spreadsheets.
Balancing security, risk, and compliance across shifting threats and regulatory frameworks can feel like running a never-ending marathon.
Enter Drata's a genetic trust management platform designed for leaders like you.
Drata automates the tedious tasks like security questionnaire responses, continuous evidence collection, and much more, saving you hundreds of hours each year.
With Drata, you spend less time chasing documents and more time solving real security problems.
But it's more than just a time saver.
It's built to scale and adapt to your organization's needs, whether you're running a startup or leading GRC for a global enterprise.
With Drata, you get one centralized platform to manage your risk and compliance program.
Drata gives you a holistic view of your GRC program and real-time reporting your stakeholders can act on.
With Drata, you can also unlock a powerful trust center, a live customizable product that supports you in expediting your never-ending security review requests in the deal process.
Share your security posture with stakeholders or potential customers, cut down on back and forth questions, and build trust at every interaction.
If you are ready to modernize your GRC program and take back your time, visit Drata.com to learn more.
Albert Bandora's moral disengagement theory identifies eight mechanisms by which ordinary people disable their internal moral controls.
They include things like reframing harmful behavior, i.e., portraying destructive behavior as serving worthy moral, social, or economic purposes, e.g., it's for the greater good.
There's also victim blaming and dehumanization, ignoring or distorting consequences, obscuring agency, and more.
Now, many, if not all of these mechanisms are visible in public discourse around, for example, the Mancioni shooting, particularly moral justification, i.e., the healthcare system kills people daily, so this is justice.
Kurt Gray and Daniel Wagner's moral typecasting theory tries to explain why the public appears to lack empathy for elite victims.
Once someone is typecast as a moral agent, i.e., a powerful CEO making decisions affecting millions, they are perceived as less capable of suffering.
Some in the public simultaneously see themselves as moral patients or victims of the system.
Sarah Conrath of Indiana University wrote, what looks like an empathy crisis towards a specific person might actually reflect the public's moral judgments about who deserves empathy.
Now, what makes this such a caustic environment for this right now is that we have both real economic trouble and inequality, as well as even more perceived inequality, with social media widening the gap and research suggesting that perceived inequality matters more than actual inequality.
Now, I don't think anyone will disagree that the material basis for economic grievance is real.
Home prices are now up 60% since 2019.
The median household must now spend 47.7% of income to own a median priced home, which is far above the 30% affordability threshold.
The median age of first-time homebuyers has risen to 40, and the top 1% of U.S.
households now own 31.7% of wealth, which is the widest gap since the Federal Reserve began collecting data in 1989.
And yet, research consistently shows that perceived inequality drives political radicalization more powerful than actual inequality.
The EU-funded DARE Project, standing for dialogue about radicalization inequality, studied radicalization across multiple countries and concluded people who perceive themselves as unequal are more likely to become radicalized than people who live in the same conditions but who do not consider themselves as unequal.
A systematic review of 141 publications in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence found that perceived socio-political inequality matters significantly more than objective economic conditions when it comes to radicalization.
Another paper in the European Journal of Political Economy called Perceptions of Inequality found that citizens, quote, perceive economic inequalities spectacularly wrong, and that these misperceptions, not reality, correlate with demand for redistribution and class conflict.
A 2025 study demonstrated a causal chain.
Visual wealth exposure on social media increases upward social comparison, which increases relative deprivation, which increases hostility towards the rich, which provokes aggressive behavior.
And what's more, this causal chain is increasingly observable beyond just the anecdotal.
Another recent study published in Science shows that algorithmic content ranking could shift partisan political feelings by approximately two points on a feelings thermometer in a single week, comparable in size to three years of change in the US.
And in a study that's incredibly important for bringing it back to our example of AI, a paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 2022, found that it is not static poverty or even current inequality that motivates political violence, but projected economic decline.
The study showed that people anticipating downward mobility enter what they call a domain of loss, where they become risk-seeking and susceptible to mobilization for violence.
I do not have to spell this out for an audience as smart as you, to demonstrate how this finding is directly relevant to AI anxiety.
The threat, of course, is not just that people are poor today, but that they believe AI will make them poorer tomorrow.
I would point once again to the fact that all of the AI CEOs seem to make it their business to go on new podcasts every week to talk about how many people are going to lose their jobs.
Now the question becomes, what can be done about this?
Well, one thing that the research shows does not work is just trying to make people like each other more.
In a comprehensive 2023 review for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rachel Kleinfeld found that reducing effective polarization does not reduce support for political violence.
In other words, lab interventions that successfully made partisans feel warmer towards each other had zero effect on attitudes towards violence.
In other words, you cannot kumbaya your way out of this.
So what does work?
The first, and perhaps most important is political efficacy.
In short, when aggrieved individuals perceive that democratic channels work, they're less likely to support violence.
If they think that their political participation doesn't matter, they are more likely to support violence.
In AI land, if people perceive that AI companies will simply lobby against regulation at all turns and constantly get their way, that is going to feed perception that democratic recourse is unavailable.
Second, the inverse of the idea that poor prospects rather than current inequality motivates political violence, is that you have to address economic trajectory, policies then that credibly improve people's economic outlook, whether that's job retraining with real placement, housing affordability measures, portable benefits, whatever it is that actually changes perception of future prospects, can reduce the sense of downward mobility that fuels radicalization.
Now, to some, that might suggest, let's get the UBI train rolling, right?
Not so fast.
Jeremy Gingis from the New School offers a critical warning.
In his study, The Moral Logic of Political Violence, he found that when sacred values are at stake, material incentives to prevent violence can backfire.
Now, his experiments were in a very different context, but it's not hard to apply this to the conversations about UBI.
I think one can argue that the constant discourse about UBI, the fact that we're effectively trading for the job through which you find meaning for a government handout, doesn't counteract the anticipated decline that motivates political violence, it actually confirms the bad trajectory.
It's basically AI saying, we agree your labor has no future value, here's a check.
That's not addressing the domain of lost psychology, it's ratifying it.
You're telling someone that their economic future is over and handing them a stipend.
That's basically the exact opposite of what research has found actually works.
There's also a dignity dimension that the moral typecasting research illuminates.
When AI leaders propose UBI, they're positioning themselves as the moral agent, the powerful actor making decisions, and the public as moral patients, i.e.
passive recipients.
Research shows that that's exactly the type of framing that generates resentment, because being typecast as a patient means being seen as lacking agency.
UBI from the people who are automating your job is the most condensed possible version of that dynamic.
Young Macro on Twitter wrote: UBI is obviously nowhere near the panacea many of you seem to think it is.
The median left-leaning Westerner isn't angry at Elon Musk because he can buy a million times more groceries than them.
They aren't upset with Palantir because Peter Thiel can afford to eat a thousand burgers to their one.
The whole thing is in large part post-material.
It's the hierarchy and subordination they're uncomfortable with.
They feel their dignity is being trampled and their autonomy progressively diminished.
Rightly or wrongly, they feel politically disenfranchised and stripped of a say over the future, offering a guaranteed food budget and a pod to spend the night in in return for further disempowerment is incredibly tone-deaf and should be expected to provoke more, not less, outrage.
The point that I'm making ultimately is that AI is not an independent issue, but is becoming a perfect cauldron because it concentrates every larger grievance that is downstream from economics simultaneously.
Job displacement anxiety is broader and more personal than any previous automation wave.
Wealth concentration is visible and extreme, and AI creates a new face for it.
Existential risk rhetoric acts as a moral urgency multiplier, and AI leaders keep saying the quiet part loud.
Investor Jack Reigns wrote, The majority of Americans, quote unquote, hate AI.
Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise when the CEOs of the three biggest AI labs in America are all basically saying the entire white-collar labor force is just a few years away from getting brutally job mobbed by LLMs.
And maybe most importantly, from the standpoint of something that can be actively changed, is that to many people, democratic channels appear blocked.
In a paper called Artificial Intelligence, the Common Good and the Democratic Deficit in AI governance, Mark Kochelberg warned of a quote, tendency to deny the inherent political character of the issue and to take a technocratic shortcut, producing a small technocratic elite that rules a mass of angry citizens who rightly complain they are not heard.
Now, it would be overambitious, even for me to try to now, in the last few minutes of a podcast, create a map for where we need to go.
But it is clear that there are going to be three dimensions of this if we want to turn back the tide of violent AI populism.
The first is we need to restore or create for the first time credible democratic channels for AI governance.
And this is going to be genuinely uncomfortable for the industry.
It's not for sure, but it may be the case that accepting meaningful regulation may be the single most effective de escalation tool available.
You get a sense in Sam Altman's blog post that he may be coming to the same conclusion.
In his analogy to Sauron's One Ring, he writes that the only solution I can come up with is for no one to have the ring.
And he says that of the two obvious ways to do this, one is individual empowerment, and the other is, in his words, making sure democratic systems stay in control.
The problem many would point out is that that hasn't necessarily been the posture of the AI labs vis-a-vis the governance process, and so figuring out how to empower democratic governance over AI seems like it's going to be an increasingly important problem to solve.
A second part of the solution is going to have to be addressing economic trajectory.
This is the one that I think is the most viable the most quickly.
As regular listeners will know, my long-term AI optimism is rooted in the fact that I think that human demands and wants, and frankly, ability to consume is basically unlimited, and that the net effect of combining AI with workers will not be less workers, it will be massively more output of all types, that creates more stuff, more content, more things, and significantly increases the size of the overall economy.
In fact, if anything, I wouldn't be surprised if burnout and overworking become more of an issue in the long run than working less and not having jobs.
And yet at the same time, it is absolutely undeniable that the nature of work, the skills require, the processes is going to shift dramatically.
So we need to support the transition.
I think at this point, the fact that we don't have a Marshall Plan for AI education, for reskilling, empowerment, entrepreneurial development is an absolutely critical failure, yet one that can be addressed in short order.
Third and finally, studies suggest that there's going to have to be some way to break the overtly moral frame without dismissing the grievance of people who are concerned about AI.
The bitter pill is this if AI is indeed the perfect cauldron for growing economic and political grievance overall, de escalation cannot just come from turning down the heat on rhetoric.
It's going to require addressing the actual ingredients, democratic deficit, economic trajectory, and moral urgency.
And what's more, the people who are best positioned to do that are the ones who, at least in the past, have least wanted to.
So that, my friends, is the task ahead of us.
It will not be easy, but I don't believe we have another choice.
For now, that is going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief.
Appreciate you listening or watching.
As always, and until next time, peace.