It can be on several levels:

- if we get full AGI, it is likely to kill us all as a side-effect while achieving its imperfectly aligned goals. Hopefully, we are far from it - even without full AGI, AI can become smart enough to help its users see through the BS/propaganda (dangerous for the most powerful eg, the military budget wouldn't have any sense if AI even slightly aligned with human values) - the most likely variant: if we believe "no moat" people that generative AI can be democratized, then the hyped fear of AI can be used to push regulations to prevent the democratization, as an anti-competitive measure, so that only few corporations may access the technology legally.

Valid question. My statement is a bit vague. I see AI as a disruptive technology similar to the printing press or radio. It enables regular people to accomplish task that were previously difficult. I can see it becoming a tool that makes some major companies obsolete in the way it opens up new paths. But fair point, a lot of these AI advancements are being pushed forward by large corporations like Microsoft and Google. It’s obvious that AI as a tool will be used for good and evil. Tech companies who wish to survive see the necessity to get in on the bottom floor of this technological leap forward.

Either way, my observation is simply that I could see a lot of parties finding the advancement of human potential through AI to be harmful to the status quo that they comfortably exist in.

Read these to find out:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/08/ai-mac...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-...