But what really blows my noodle is how rare AI skepticism still is in the media. One year ago, ChatGPT was opened to the public. The onslaught of overheated and careless rhetoric about our imminent ascent to a new plane of existence (or our imminent extermination) began then and has not slowed since. It’s inherent to the financial interests of journalism for professional media to sensationalize, after all. (This is a complaint that’s old enough that it was made by Charles Dickens, among many other journalists.) And so I’m not at all surprised that there’s been so many stories about how nothing will ever be the same, even as we’re all still just living busy little ordinary lives like we always have. What does surprise me is that there hasn’t really been a counterweight to all of that, writers looking at all the froth and seeing that there’s an unfilled need for some skepticism and restraint. It remains the case that the best bet about the future lies in something like the statement “these new ‘AI’ technologies aren’t really artificial intelligence and are unlikely ever to be, but they could have some interesting and moderately significant consequences.” But I see very very little of that. The Boston Globe has run a few skeptical pieces, including by me, and every once in a while I see a strong argument that we’re getting way ahead of ourselves. In general, though, there’s a remarkable dearth of restraint.