The question AI proponents have to answer: Why should the masses who are not investors or business owners support further AI development? What’s in it for them? Big Tech and AI companies have been marketing AI a lot towards corporations and business owners to replace employees, while ignoring (and even making fun of) people with regular jobs who make up a huge chunk of the voting population.
— Ryan Orry Lang (@orryano) November 6, 2026
I realize that X is an echo chamber when it comes to AI. Many of us here are investors and/or business owners who have financially benefited from AI. We forget that so many people out there barely invest, don’t run their own businesses, and have barely benefited from AI financially. They are regular employees whose livelihoods are threatened by it. It makes sense they are against it, and their numbers are significant enough to form a voting bloc representable by politicians who see this as an opportunity. Other politicians and everyone else who remain in the echo chamber are blindsided, and they can’t seem to understand why there is such pushback against it. Being patronizing is not the answer. It only gives more ammunition to those who are against further developments in AI.
— Ryan Orry Lang (@orryano) November 5, 2026
A lot of investors, business owners, and politicians underestimate the fear the masses (the voters) have around AI. Failing to understand that is probably one reason why the US voted the way it did in the recent midterms. Regular white-collar employees, which make up a huge chunk of the population, are definitely under threat for mass unemployment once AI powers on further. That point doesn’t seem too far away. Some would argue it’s already here. Think about this. What would you do if you wake up to go to your job every day, while being reminded time and time again that AI is getting more and more capable of doing your job? You try it, and you almost can’t believe it. It works. But then it hits you. This job is your livelihood. You went to school, you got your degree, you put in the work, only for a robot to take it away. You don’t have much of an investment to financially benefit from AI. You don’t have a say in all of this. So what do you do? You express your say by voting for politicians who claim they will stop AI. You support the ban of data centers. Until we have a solution for mass unemployment that would ensue from further development in AI, the masses (the voters) are going to be afraid of it. Policies to advance AI further will be unpopular, and politicians will have to keep this in mind to do well. They shouldn’t underestimate or patronize the masses who have legitimate concerns towards AI. The solution is probably not by explaining that “the rest of the world will keep on developing AI further and we will be left behind if we don’t do the same”, or “trying to put the genie back in the bottle will contract the economy and your retirement accounts”. The masses don’t care much about that if they don’t have jobs. They want an answer to what happens to them and/or their families when mass unemployment ensues because of AI. What is the answer? If AI will in fact provide them with alternative employment opportunities, communicate that properly. How do you show that? Is there any tangible proof? If banning AI in the US means people will end up using alternatives from other countries, explain that. Many people are not aware of comparable alternatives outside the US. The point is, do not underestimate and patronize people who are against AI. They form a significant voting bloc as people who have barely benefited from AI financially. They see it as a mass unemployment tool and a threat to their livelihoods. Not addressing this properly will only lead to a longer tug-of-war that truly stalls the development of AI.
— Ryan Orry Lang (@orryano) November 5, 2026