One of the most radicalizing developments in AI over the past year has been the coordinated shift in messaging from AI leaders.

At first, they appeared to be speaking candidly about AI’s likely effects, including major disruption to the labor force and the broader economy. But, as the argument goes, people do not welcome the prospect of widespread disruption or job losses. That reaction has increasingly shown up as broader opposition to data centers. They are now widely unpopular on both sides of the political spectrum in the United States, with 71% of Americans saying they are against them. That has already contributed to a notable policy reversal in Texas and Ohio, where incumbent Republican leaders changed their positions and moved to block such projects.

Over the past year, AI leaders including Dario Amodei and Sam Altman have softened their language and now say jobs will not be lost, using the reasoning that new technology has historically created more jobs over time. At the same time, Anthropic is conducting an IPO roadshow and telling investors that its total addressable market is $30 trillion, or 20% of the global services economy. The tension between those messages matters because the sector’s public framing now has to satisfy several audiences at once: workers, policymakers, and capital markets.

On valuation grounds alone, reaching that scale would require AI to drive major disruption, including the replacement of substantial parts of the software industry and services.

A signal about Altman, the piece argues, should have been visible earlier, when OpenAI’s board rebelled against him over concerns that he had not been fully forthcoming, and he later engineered a coup to regain control.

The article points to a blog post by Richard Ngo, who joined OpenAI in 2021, describing Altman’s ability to mislead people:

For those who don't know Sam, it might seem odd that I ever took his arguments seriously even given my tendency towards sycophancy. One underappreciated factor is that he has something similar to Steve Jobs' reality distortion field—but in his case I'd call it an earnestness field. His intonation and body language send very strong signals of sincerity; and he does enough things motivated by earnest nerdiness that it’s easy to rationalize away discrepancies. Modeling this dynamic is necessary to explain the very high ratio between people who polarize against him and concrete evidence of his misbehavior. When people realize that Sam is lying (even about things that don’t matter much) while embodying that level of earnestness, there's a strong visceral update away from trusting him, which is hard to convey to others.

The author also compares the situation with recent remarks and actions by Elon Musk, noting that Musk says money will not matter by 2036 while also spending time cutting U.S. aid programs through DOGE and pursuing large compensation packages.

The broader point, according to the piece, is that the entire sector has become self-serving and that many participants are now “talking their book,” making it difficult to know where developments are headed. The argument adds that concerns around safety and alignment have largely been pushed aside because of competitive pressures, with the logic that “someone else will do it if I don’t,” which also matches financial incentives.

The article cites Upton Sinclair, who said: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

It also says the messaging is shifting as industry leaders look for narratives that will help them win, continue raising money and maintain power.

The latest comments from Altman are then quoted directly:

"I thought when we got to GPT-4, which was back in 2023, that very quickly after that there was going to be much more disruption, software businesses up for grabs right away, than it turned out to be."

"I think I was wrong about a few things, but one in terms of the speed: the economy just has so much inertia."

"People keep doing the same things, buying from the same company, wanting to use their tools the same way. I think this is actually a positive in many ways, and it's going to make this big transition go smoother and slower. I'm grateful for it."

"But it means we've all been too ambitious on timelines. Even with this incredible technology, society and the economy will adapt more slowly."

The author says that assessment is consistent with an investment theme often associated with AI: profiting from lack of change rather than from change. That idea is linked to a Warren Buffett comment from the dot-com era:

"Our approach is very much profiting from lack of change rather than from change. With Wrigley chewing gum, it's the lack of change that appeals to me. I don't think it is going to be hurt by the Internet. That's the kind of business I like."

The piece also says there are somehow more travel agents working today than in 1995, while realtors still take 3% to 5% of real estate transactions despite technological progress.

The author says this line of thinking helped lead to investments in airlines, which are described as businesses that will not be disrupted by AI. For investors considering AI, the article concludes that there are now very few trustworthy insiders, making the area even harder to navigate.

Primary links: