> Reality lies in the middle
The argument to moderation/middle ground fallacy is a fallacy.
The argument to moderation/middle ground fallacy is a fallacy.
The fallacy is that the true lies _at_ the middle, not in the middle.
This is totally fallacious.
"AI is a bubble" and "AI is going to replace all human jobs" is, essentially, the two extremes I'm seeing. AI replacing some jobs (even if partially) and the bubble-ness of the boom are both things that exist on a line between two points. Both can be partially true and exist anywhere on the line between true and false.
No jobs replaced<-------------------------------------->All jobs replaced
Bubble crashes the economy and we all end up dead in a ditch from famine<---------------------------------------->We all end up super rich in the post scarcity economy
For one, in higher dimensions, most of the volume of a hypersphere is concentrated near the border.
Secondly, and it is somewhat related, you are implicitly assuming some sort of convexity argument (X is maybe true, Y is maybe true, 0.5X + 0.5 Y is maybe true). Why?
Ultimately, if both sides have a true argument, the real issue is which will happen first in time? Will AI change the world before the whole circular investment vehicle implode? Or after, like happened with the dotcom boom?
Round-earthers: The earth is round.
"Reality lies in the middle" argument: The earth is oblong, not a perfect sphere, so both sides were right.
The AI situation doesn't not have two mutually exclusive claims, it has two claims on the opposite sides of economic and cultural impact that are differences of magnitude and direction.
AI can both be a bubble and revolutionary, just like the internet.