My friend Danny recently argued that public skepticism over AI is mostly irrational: driven by fear, not facts. I disagree. We've seen what happens when industries change at speed without guardrails.

I'm old enough to remember that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 led to massive media consolidation after ownership limits were relaxed, weakened broadband competition as incumbents froze local ISPs out of the market, and a massive boom in robocalls and telemarketing that has made my phone an object of dread instead of wonder.

How much cheaper would my cable and internet be if AT&T hadn’t lobbied to kill unbundling requirements? If we hadn't relaxed ownership caps, would Fox News even exist in its current form? We'll never know.

Two employees at different enterprise companies told me in the last week that the AI agents their bosses pressure them to use generate bland and often incorrect results. As a result, they've started lying whenever they're asked if they're using the tools and apparently, no one can tell the difference.

In Memphis, Tennessee, Black residents have complained for months about emissions from Elon Musk's gas-powered AI data center. Despite clear environmental concerns and possible Clean Air Act violations, the city granted xAI a permit. I wouldn't characterize their feelings about AI as "profoundly irrational."

Why wouldn't creative people be concerned that tech companies worth many billions of dollars are using their work without permission to train LLMs? Is it really "anti-tech" to be opposed to unaccountable and extractive deployment by tech companies that want to literally profit from my work?

There are plenty of reasons for consumers to question whether AI is truly adding value to workers' lives and careers.

The Luddites weren't just textile workers — they were skilled artisans, many of whom apprenticed for years to learn their trade. Unlike most workers of the era, they had control over their tools, their pace of work and their productive output. Those jobs gave their families economic stability and respect in their communities.

The looms that replaced them were operated by poorly trained workers (many of them women and children) who were paid low wages. Also: the looms were dangerous as hell.

Workers were ordered to clear jams by hand from machines still in operation, with many losing fingers, hands and limbs to crush injuries. Those looms were deafening and spewed cotton fibers and dust into the air, leading to "mill fever."

The Luddite revolt wasn't anti-tech. They were opposed to a system that extracted value from their labor while offering them nothing in return. Sound familiar?

Emerging technologies can become beneficial, but that doesn't make them good" the moment they arrive. Today's AI industry leaders are not "seizing the torch and guiding everyone forward together." If this technology is as disruptive as its backers claim, why is it irrational for legislators to regulate it?

It's completely reasonable to ask questions and remain skeptical about the environmental, economic and cultural impacts of emerging technology. If Americans had shown more curiosity about atmospheric nuclear testing, leaded gasoline or coal-fired power plants in the 1950s, we'd all be better off today.

The legislation under consideration in Washington state wouldn't give "public-sector unions a practical veto over any automation of their work." However, it would balance innovation with worker protections. You suggest that "productivity’s gains can be to everyone’s benefit," but the federal minimum wage has been $7.25 per hour since 2009. Who's benefiting?

The real issue here isn't that "people are scared of AI." It's that change without shared gains breeds backlash, and that shouldn't surprise anyone.