It got traction because it supported everyone’s position in some way:
* Pro-safety folks could point at it and say this is why AI development should slow down or stop
* LLM-doomer folks (disclaimer: it me) can point at it and mock its pie-in-the-sky charts and milestones, as well as its handwashing of any actual issues LLMs have at present, or even just mock the persistent BS nonsense of “AI will eliminate jobs but the economy [built atop consumer spending] will grow exponentially forever so it’ll be fine” that’s so often spewed like sewage
* AI boosters and accelerationists can point to it as why we should speed ahead even faster, because you see, everyone will likely be fine in the end and you can totes trust us to slow down and behave safely at the right moment, swearsies
Good fiction always tickles the brain across multiple positions and knowledge domains, and AI 2027 was no different. It’s a parable warning about the extreme dangers of AI, but fails to mention how immediate they are (such as already being deployed to Kamikaze drones) and ultimately wraps it all up as akin to a coin toss between an American or Chinese Empire. It makes a lot of assumptions to sell its particular narrative, to serve its own agenda.