@tyler_johnston: In the past few weeks, a wide network of X accounts have repeatedly claimed that those raising concerns about AI are me…

In the past few weeks, a wide network of X accounts have repeatedly claimed that those raising concerns about AI are merely pawns in a well-funded psyop run by powerful interests.

So I followed the money behind them. Here’s what I found 🧵

After Jacob Coxon’s viral resignation thread hit 173M views a few weeks ago, the backlash was sudden and swift.

I collected 10,000+ tweets and looked for who was at the center of the backlash.

Dozens of accounts became full-time posters accusing those worried about AI of being doomers, cultists, woke, or part of a hoax/psyop.

Many of these accounts have direct links to industry front groups fighting AI regulation full-time, including the $140 million OpenAI/a16z super PAC, and the $100 million White House-aligned Innovation Council Action.

The accounts frequently amplified each other, again with powerful industry political operatives at the center of the action — alongside a wider cast of right-wing media, accelerationists, and independent commentators.

Some of the operatives that I suspect are working on behalf of Innovation Council Action (the $100m industry group) don’t clearly disclose their affiliation.

One posted a professionally made TV ad attacking effective altruists, which got 163k views, without any mention of who made it. However, it used the same sound and transition effects as past attack ads published by Innovation Council Action.

Another operative, who removed Innovation Council Action from his LinkedIn a few weeks ago, has deleted tweets saying he isn’t paid for his work.

None of this means AI safety groups, and the philanthropic ecosystem supporting them, are above scrutiny. They’re well-funded too.

But the AI industry is spending hundreds of millions on politics, hundreds of billions on building these systems, and has trillions riding on its continued growth. It has every reason to want Washington, and the public, to stop worrying.

At some point, the conversation must return to the actual issues and the merits of the arguments on either side: What should we make of AI progress? How dangerous is it really? What would a sane policy response to all of this look like?

The sooner the discourse can return to focusing on these core questions, the better.

Read my full piece: