The “AI is fake and sucks” people who take phony comfort in their AI skepticism need to accept that AI is more real and dangerous than they currently admit
It's fun to say that artificial intelligence is fake and sucks — but evidence is mounting that it's real and dangerous — I. Bluesky: @matrig.net , @rickywlmsbong , @rjcc , @avellino , @robert.blue , @jeremy.lewi.us , @mviktoro , @garymarcus , @garymarcus , @emilytav , @markuspantsar , @eryk , @rachelcoldicutt , @ariehkovler.com , @neighbor , @jayrosen , @caseynewton , @hypervisible , @megannotarte.com , @garymarcus , @tracynorton , @sethlazar.org , @malwaretech.com , @liedra.net , @chrismoranuk , @wildebees , @micah541 , @fabiochiusi , and @garymarcus . Mastodon: @glecharles@gardenstate.social . Threads: @katienotopoulos . LinkedIn: Jean Burgess . Forums: r/BetterOffline Bluesky: Mattia Rigotti / @matrig.net : This is incredibly simplistic. — AI isn't just ‘fake and sucks’ vs. ‘real and dangerous.’ There are various types and applications of AI, including ‘real’ uses that are genuinely beneficial. And often, the most dangerous outcomes come from unintended consequences from poorly designed AI that sucks. … @rickywlmsbong : nah it's not fake but it does suck [embedded post] Richard Lawler / @rjcc : It's probably possible to think that most of the ai tools that we've been shown do suck, and that even something that only kind of works in limited ways can also be real and dangerous. — I'm not sure how many people actually disagree with that, if they were asked. [embedded post] Andre Vellino / @avellino : As I play at home with local instances of Llama 3.2, there's no doubt at all that “AI is real and dangerous”... very dangerous... At the very least, it greatly amplifies everything what a human mind can do and there are a sufficiently large number of malevolent minds out there that want to do harm. … Robert Stephens / @robert.blue : This is one of Casey's best and most — cogent posts on AI yet. Worth it just for the list of incredible uses of LLMs already deployed... [embedded post] Jeremy Lewi / @jeremy.lewi.us : Seems like the debate has moved past these extremes and is now more about how useful is AI? In my domain, AI for devops, I suspect most folks are using AI to answer questions about Cloud, K8s, etc... but will it fundamentally change devops? That an open question [embedded post] Monika Viktorova / @mviktoro : It's weird to see so many fallacies strung together in one piece but let me start with this one: — 300MM active users =/= using genAI the way Newton describes utopically at the end ("solving complicated problems of math and science" — I'd love to see how many users are troll farms, scammers, criminals [embedded post] Gary Marcus / @garymarcus : Who actually said that AI is “fake and sucks”? — Unfortunately you badly misrepresented my position, and also did a disservice to the field of AI skepticism as a whole. This was not your best piece. — I will reply at length tomorrow, adding a link below. Gary Marcus / @garymarcus : It's a catastrophe of strawmannery. — More details in the am on my substack. @emilytav : This is the most thoughtful outline of the debate I've seen to date & worth reading. — Though I am definitely a skeptic, I don't know enough about AI to take a position. My only strong belief: GenAI is an emerging & experimental technology & has no business in high-stakes or caretaking scenarios. … Markus Pantsar / @markuspantsar : Don't get fooled by views like this, it's another case of creating polarization that's just not there. Carefully considered AI skepticism is badly needed, including sober analyses like those by Marcus. But pieces like this make AI skeptics sound like uninformed Luddites. — bsky.app/profile/case... … Eryk Salvaggio / @eryk : Anyway here's the full post I'm responding to, looking forward to reading much spicier takes on this tomorrow. www.platformer.news/ai-skeptics- ... Rachel Coldicutt / @rachelcoldicutt : Either this is an Extremely Online binary or a specifically US one, as in the UK I think it's more like “people who think AI is the answer to literally everything” vs “people who think AI is not the answer to everything”. [embedded post] Arieh Kovler / @ariehkovler.com : Great article from @caseynewton.bsky.social who's been on the AI beat longer than anyone. I fall in the middle of these two camps, but more towards the real/dangerous side. But one thing that frustrates me about the debates over AI is how it's somehow become another Culture War issue [embedded post] Peter Lewis / @neighbor : I work in AI + health tech (finding innovative ways to help people manage their health), and I think AI *can* be a huge force for good, but this piece by one of the best tech journalists out there is an important read on it's risks [embedded post] Jay Rosen / @jayrosen : “When I asked you how you wanted me to cover...” — Here's a journalist who is tight with his readers, and unafraid to ask them for guidance. www.platformer.news/ai-skeptics- ... His name is Casey Newton. @caseynewton.bsky.social His site is Platformer. He's an independent. Works for himself. … Casey Newton / @caseynewton : One of the most important debates in tech right now is the group of folks who think AI is fake and sucks vs. the people who think AI is real and dangerous. I wrote about why I'm in the latter camp, and talked about my differences with Gary Marcus www.platformer.news/ai-skeptics- ... [image] @hypervisible : This is wildly dismissive of scholars, activists, and journalists whose critiques go well beyond “it sucks and it's fake.” Moreso, substantive critiques about it sucking often point out not that it's “fake” but that it's used for tasks it's not suited for to the detriment of people it's used against Megan Notarte / @megannotarte.com : God, I love you @caseynewton.bsky.social and the way you break this down. [embedded post] Gary Marcus / @garymarcus : Dear @caseynewton.bsky.social, there is a pretty clear consensus on your latest piece. — We are all surprised at (a) how bad it is and (b) how filled it is with straw person arguments. — I will reply in depth soon at garymarcus.substack.com [embedded post] Tracy L. M. Norton / @tracynorton : Both of these positions are grounded in a belief that GAI could be something that it simply is not and cannot be. It's a new tool with capabilities we're learning how to leverage. It's paradigm shifting but not nearly as powerful as many think it is/should be. 1/2 [embedded post] Seth Lazar / @sethlazar.org : More people who take a sociotechnical approach to AI (many of whom think it is fake and sucks) need to condition on the fact that real advances have been made, and more are to come. Not just to avoid irrelevance, but because the sociotechnical approach is so urgently needed for what's coming. … Marcus Hutchins / @malwaretech.com : I realize I'm not the target audience for this, but “we're seeing 750 million cyber attack attempts per day” means absolutely nothing. What are “attempts”? Automated scan? Phishing emails received? Failed logins? Firewall packet drops? It doesn't communicate anything nor relate to the dangers of AI. … Prof. Catherine Flick / @liedra.net : As a subscriber to @caseynewton.bsky.social's newsletter and an AI critic/sceptic, I'm actually really cranky about the way Casey portrayed @garymarcus.bsky.social and the field that rightfully questions the hype, legitimacy and real world impact of LLM systems. It was a classic straw man fallacy. Chris Moran / @chrismoranuk : I had problems with this beyond the binary representation of two sides. If the argument is that AI is unreliable, wonderful and dangerous (now and in the future) then it seems odd to end by complaining about people pointing out current dangers and limitations 1/ www.platformer.news/ai-skeptics- ... Wessel van Rensburg / @wildebees : I think there are three groups in reality and the borders between them are not always neatly delineated. There's the — (1) AGI and existential doom is imminent crowd; — (2) the it's flawed but transformative and improving crowd (e.g. Newton); and then — (3) there's the — it's fake crowd. … Micah Warren / @micah541 : Man's car stalls on a country road. Farmer comes out to help him, tinkers around under the hood, then asks chatgpt, who responds that it's probably a bad crankshaft position sensor. — At this point the cow leans over the fence and says “don't trust LLMs, they're just overhyped auto correct” [embedded post] Fabio Chiusi / @fabiochiusi : I'm surprised how bad this piece is. It assumes a simplified version of the AI debate that is not helpful and not even remotely close to what is actually happening — at least imho. — Straw men arguments are not going to help us think. Rather, the opposite. [embedded post] Gary Marcus / @garymarcus : If you read this tweet (or the essay it links) would you think that I said that AI is fake and it sucks? — It sure comes off that way, but that's not actually my position. — More about what I actually believe and how Newton misrepresented me in the morning. [embedded post] Mastodon: Guy LeCharles Gonzalez / @glecharles@gardenstate.social : “The phony comforts of AI skepticism” — I appreciate @caseynewton's attempt here, but starting with the false dilemma that there are only two POVs on AI undercuts what he almost accomplishes with the rest of this article. … Threads: Katie Notopoulos / @katienotopoulos : I'm like Trump in many ways but especially in that I am easily swayed by the last person I talk to. So I found Casey's argument against AI skepticism very compelling, thoughtful. and measured. Me? I'm adjusting my position to “In The Middle” and that way I can't be wrong (classic lifehack) … LinkedIn: Jean Burgess : Really good commentary from Casey Newton. — 'This is the ongoing blind spot of the “AI is fake and sucks” crowd. … Forums: r/BetterOffline : “The phony comforts of AI skepticism” (Casey Newton)
Context & Ripple Effects
This dispute sits within a longer argument over whether AI criticism should focus on systems’ present-day harms or on claims of humanlike intelligence. Earlier coverage warned that treating the debate as a two-camp schism can obscure substantive research on actual harms the critique of a false AI-risk divide.
The response from Gary Marcus and other commentators makes the framing itself the story: critics do not necessarily reject AI’s impact, but object to skepticism being equated with denial. That echoes work associated with Emily Bender’s account of what language models can and cannot do.
First-order effects
- Newton’s essay intensifies a public disagreement over who gets to define responsible AI criticism, while Marcus and other respondents contest the characterization of skeptics.
- The immediate effect is discursive rather than technical: attention shifts from individual AI claims to whether the “fake and sucks” label fairly describes the people raising objections.
Second-order effects
- A binary frame can make it harder for journalists, policymakers, and audiences to distinguish skepticism about capability claims from concern about deployment harms, incentives, or governance.
- AI companies and their critics both gain reason to make their claims more explicit: broad assertions of either AI inevitability or AI irrelevance are easier for opponents to challenge.
Third-order effects
- If this framing persists, AI governance debate may increasingly turn on legitimacy—whose risk assessments are treated as credible—rather than on a shared taxonomy of concrete harms and capabilities.
- The more durable divide is likely to be between governance approaches calibrated to observable systems and those organized around broader future-risk narratives; the corpus suggests that divide remains contested, not settled.
The trend: AI discourse is moving from a simple pro-versus-anti posture toward a contested struggle over how capability skepticism, real-world harms, and governance should be connected.