Is AI Adoption Hype Cult-Like?

The current hype surrounding AI adoption feels intense and cult-like due to its impact on cognitive labor, which threatens white-collar jobs and creates existential fears. This hysteria is structurally driven by powerful actors with aligned incentives, such as big tech companies and executives who use AI to justify layoffs and shift blame. The rhetoric around AI often uses absolutist and moral language, creating a status theater that exaggerates AI’s capabilities while downplaying its current limitations. This moment feels dystopian as it reframes humans as inefficiencies, prioritizing optimization over empathy and meaning. The narrative around AI is partly propaganda, driven by real capabilities but exaggerated claims, and a grounded perspective recognizes AI’s potential without succumbing to apocalyptic or utopian views. This matters because it highlights the need for a balanced approach to AI, emphasizing human judgment and responsibility amidst the hype.

The hype surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) adoption is unlike anything seen with previous technological advancements. This is primarily because AI threatens cognitive labor, which includes tasks such as writing, design, programming, and decision-making. Unlike past automation waves that displaced mostly manual labor, AI’s potential to “think” has led to a projection of existential meaning onto the technology, creating an emotional intensity that older technologies did not trigger. The fear and awe surrounding AI adoption are deeply tied to the threat it poses to white-collar identity, making the hype feel more personal and intense.

The hysteria around AI adoption is not accidental but rather a structural phenomenon driven by aligned incentives among powerful actors. Big tech companies, facing enormous capital expenditures and the need for specialized hardware and centralized infrastructure, have a vested interest in making AI seem inevitable. By framing non-adoption as reckless and experimentation as a moral obligation, they use ideological language to push the narrative that AI is mandatory. This language serves to justify corporate decisions, such as layoffs, by shifting blame from management to technology and framing AI as a neutral destiny rather than an executive decision.

The rhetoric surrounding AI adoption often sounds cultish, characterized by absolutism, moral framing, and in-group signaling. This language provides status and aligns with a belief system that signals intelligence and modernity, while questioning it threatens group identity. Extreme takes on AI get engagement, and tech-optimism often doubles as social Darwinism. This creates a status theater where celebrating layoffs as progress becomes a performative act, marking a shift in how people talk about other humans. AI is used as a vehicle for an ideology that values optimization over meaning, reframing humans as inefficiencies and treating empathy as sentimentality.

While AI technology is real and capable, the narrative surrounding it is often distorted. AI is currently very good at pattern completion and useful for acceleration and drafting, but it remains fragile, error-prone, and heavily dependent on human judgment. The exaggerated claims of AI as a near-autonomous worker or a replacement for humans are propaganda, driven by aligned incentives and repetition. Historically, technological shifts go through overestimation of short-term impact and underestimation of long-term complexity. The most rational stance is to use AI where it genuinely helps, reject apocalyptic or utopian framing, and refuse narratives that treat people as disposable. This clear-eyed skepticism is crucial in the face of ideology masquerading as progress.

Read the original article here