Silicon Valley executives are confidently proclaiming that artificial intelligence will fundamentally transform everyone’s lives for the better, and very soon. They herald AI as ‘the new electricity,’ or even ‘bigger than fire,’ with some suggesting that future generations won’t even need retirement savings because everyone will achieve immense wealth.
Interestingly, this is hardly a novel sales pitch. Historically, creators of new technologies have consistently presented their innovations as catalysts for a profound shift in human existence. The radio was once promoted as a means to achieve ‘perpetual peace on earth,’ television was expected to foster such deep cultural empathy that it would end all wars, and cable television promised widespread enlightenment through mass education.
However, this time around, the public isn’t embracing the narrative with the same fervor.
A recent You.gov survey revealed that over a third of respondents expressed concern that AI could lead to the extinction of human life. Even among those with a more optimistic outlook, another poll indicated that the vast majority would not pay extra for AI features on their devices. Furthermore, a National Bureau of Economic Research survey found that 80 percent of firms reported no discernible impact from AI on their productivity or employment.
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI and a leading figure in the AI revolution, has openly acknowledged facing greater ‘resistance’ to AI’s integration and adoption into both culture and the economy than he had initially anticipated.
“Considering the possibilities, it feels surprisingly slow,” Altman noted at a recent AI conference.
Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia, a major chip manufacturer for AI systems, also shares this concern. Despite the pervasive hype from the tech industry, Mr. Huang believes that critics are currently winning “the battle of narratives.”
“It’s extremely hurtful, frankly,” Huang stated in a podcast interview. He attributes “a lot of damage” to “very well-respected people who have painted a doomer narrative, end-of-the-world narrative, science fiction narrative.”
In Huang’s view, these critics are advocating for regulations that could impede the AI industry’s progress and are “scaring people from making the investments in A.I.” that are essential for its advancement.
Despite these worries, Nvidia is not struggling for investment. It currently stands as the world’s most valuable company, boasting a market capitalization of $4.5 trillion, largely thanks to its crucial role in powering AI data centers. Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have also experienced significant surges in their valuations. Several AI startups, including OpenAI, have achieved astonishing valuations almost overnight, a phenomenon rarely seen before.
Nevertheless, Huang’s observation about stalled adoption holds true. A Gallup report from late 2025 indicated that only 38 percent of employees saw AI technology integrated into their workplaces, a figure that remained unchanged from the previous quarter.
Clearly, AI is not being universally welcomed as an inevitable force for good. Corporations frequently report that, thus far, AI doesn’t appear to deliver substantial benefits. Yet, fears are pervasive. For instance, the S&P North American software index plummeted by 15 percent in January, marking its steepest monthly decline in 17 years, driven by anxieties that AI could replace existing software.
“I can’t recall a boom that has faced such active hostility,” commented William Quinn, co-author of “Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles.” He observed that while new technologies like electricity, bicycles, and motorcars traditionally sparked excitement alongside some apprehension, AI is uniquely characterized by a striking lack of public enthusiasm.
Even though more than half of Americans have experimented with large language models (and almost everyone online has inadvertently used some form of AI), studies consistently show that public apprehension far outweighs excitement. A 2025 Pew survey, for example, found that 61 percent of respondents wished they had greater control over how AI is utilized in their lives.
The public’s lukewarm reception and outright hostility toward AI were likely inevitable. AI’s most ardent supporters often paint a disconcerting future where humans who harness the technology will eventually displace those who do not.
This might explain why AI regulation is one of the rare topics that unites a politically divided America. A Gallup survey last spring revealed that 80 percent of Americans desire regulations for AI, even if it means slowing down technological development.
It’s not just blue-collar workers who are wary. Edelman, the global communications firm, conducts an annual survey on societal trust. Its latest report, released in January, indicated that two-thirds of low-income U.S. respondents believe they will be ‘left behind’ by generative AI rather than gaining any real advantages. Perhaps more notably, nearly half of high-income workers share this sentiment.
A Rapid Succession of Booms
Era-defining economic booms were once rare occurrences, such as the South Seas mania of 1720, the British railway boom in the 1840s, the Roaring Twenties, or Tokyo’s economic surge in the 1980s.
These booms typically followed a predictable pattern: a handful of investors would champion new technological advancements. Early believers would see significant financial gains, attracting more investors. Critics would be marginalized, and speculation would take over, eventually leading to a market bubble that would burst. Everyone would then express regret and vow to exercise more caution in the future.
Eventually, a new technology would emerge, promising utopia, and the entire cycle would begin anew.
“One generation after another has renewed the belief that, whatever was said about earlier technologies, the latest one will fulfill a radical and revolutionary promise,” wrote Vincent Mosco, a technology historian, in “The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace.”
Today, however, financial bubbles are forming with alarming speed. We are witnessing a ‘boom in booms.’
“There was the Japanese stock bubble, then the Thai and Taiwanese bubbles, then dot-com, housing, the Chinese stock market, crypto and now A.I.,” explained William Quinn, a senior lecturer in finance at Queen’s University Belfast. He attributes this rapid succession to “very mobile financing, a deregulated financial system and rapid technological change, all of which make it easy for ordinary people to speculate.”
Just a few months ago, analysts and investors, unsettled by a stock market whose continuous ascent seemed to lack fundamental backing, began to ponder how the AI boom might conclude. After all, the exuberance of the Roaring Twenties famously ended with the Great Depression.
The ensuing debate yielded little consensus. Andrew Odlyzko, a respected scholar of investment manias, suggests that the discussion stalled because it relied too heavily on outdated notions of booms and bubbles.
Consider cryptocurrency, he offered. It has been around for 15 years, and few still genuinely believe it holds value beyond pure speculation. Yet, despite recent price fluctuations, its overall trend has been upward over the long term.
Its elevated price, he argues, is solely a reflection of its investors’ unwavering faith, which, at least for now, has managed to eclipse any doubts.
“As our society becomes more intricate and affluent, it risks losing touch with reality,” stated Dr. Odlyzko, a former head of the University of Minnesota’s Digital Technology Center. “Mass psychology has now become far more influential than technology or economics.”
In essence, AI doesn’t necessarily need to revolutionize humanity. Its success may simply depend on tech companies successfully convincing the public that it is, indeed, succeeding.
The Shadows of “Doom”
Despite the familiar promises of global transformation, certain aspects of the AI boom are genuinely distinct and contribute significantly to the public’s reluctance to fully embrace it.
Past economic surges, like the California gold rush in 1849 or the dot-com excitement, at least offered the illusion of public participation. Individuals felt they, too, could stake their claim and test their luck.
Starting an AI company, conversely, demands specialized expertise and substantial funding. For most people, AI feels less like an opportunity and more like something being imposed on them, often appearing in their email and web browsers without their direct consent or understanding.
Another issue stems from the tendency of AI’s most ardent advocates to make alarming pronouncements, sometimes seemingly without realizing the impact. Last winter, talk-show host Jimmy Fallon asked Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, with a hint of lament, “Will we still need humans?”
Gates’s response was stark: “Not for most things.”
Just last week, Mrinank Sharma, the leader of Anthropic’s safeguards research team, cryptically announced on social media his resignation to write poetry, stating he felt compelled “to set aside what matters most.” He added that the world was “in peril,” clarifying that the problems were “not just from AI.”
These ‘doomer narratives,’ as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang refers to them, are increasingly originating from within the AI community itself.
The tech executives who are staking their companies’ futures on AI’s triumph possess vast resources to ensure its success. They can invest even more capital into building additional data centers. However, these data centers are facing growing opposition from local residents across the country, who are concerned about noise, environmental disruption, secrecy, and the lack of tangible community benefits like local jobs.
Satya Nadella, the chief executive of Microsoft, is well aware of these inherent risks. He believes that “the real question” is when AI will be widely perceived as genuinely assisting people.
Nadella observed at the Davos economics forum last month that while people might admire AI as a sophisticated technological tool capable of remarkable feats, they don’t necessarily see a positive, direct effect on their own lives.
“I think we, even as a global community, have to get to a point where we’re using this to do something useful that changes the outcomes of people and communities and countries,” Mr. Nadella emphasized.
Without demonstrating such tangible benefits, he warned, the technology risks losing its “social permission” to, for example, consume as much energy as it does—a thirst that is already driving up electricity prices for U.S. households.
AI companies appear to be increasingly cognizant of this perception problem. This year’s Super Bowl, for instance, featured AI-themed advertisements that were either defensive in tone or simply perplexing. One Amazon ad, for example, depicted AI suggesting methods to eliminate Chris Hemsworth, only to conclude with a humorous twist: AI disarms him by promising a massage.
Controlled by Our Devices
While anxiety about technology has been simmering for a long time, the unique aspect of AI is how its vague yet sweeping fears are now penetrating the very heart of Silicon Valley.
A 2024 survey of registered voters in the Bay Area revealed that three-quarters believe major tech companies wield excessive power and influence.
Robert Thomas, a retired psychologist from the Bay Area, is one of these disaffected individuals. He recalled, “At first we greatly anticipated the electronic conveniences created by cybergeniuses — the personal computer, the internet, the iPad, the iPod, etc.” However, he feels that “since then things feel out of control. More and more, my life is partly controlled by some electronic device.”
Even worse, he lamented, “I barely relate to people anymore.”
Paradoxically, from the perspective of AI’s advocates, a reduced reliance on human interaction might even be seen as a benefit. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, for instance, once suggested in a podcast that “in a couple of years on almost any topic, the most interesting, maybe the most empathetic conversation that you could have will be with an A.I.”
Mr. Thomas, at 78, frequently experiences frustration, even fantasizing about physical confrontation with young tech workers. And yet. He recently used ChatGPT to compose a beautiful and eloquent birthday speech for his wife.
This striking dichotomy means that the future trajectory of AI remains inherently uncertain, poised to unfold in various possible directions.