MY TAKE: Are we ‘Super f**cked’ by AI? — debate gets 10 million-plus views on YouTube – Source: www.lastwatchdog.com

By Byron V. Acohido

The day after my column dissecting Chris Sacca’s viral outburst went live—his now-notorious claim that we are “super f**ked” by artificial intelligence—I stumbled onto another AI conversation that had already amassed over 10 million views: a roundtable debate hosted by Steven Bartlett on his widely watched YouTube show, Diary of a CEO.

Related: Ordinary folks leveraging AI

What I encountered wasn’t a retread of the usual hype cycle. It was a visceral clash of worldviews. On one side sat Amjad Masad, founder and CEO of Replit, and Daniel Priestley, a serial entrepreneur and author. On the other, evolutionary theorist Bret Weinstein. Between them: Bartlett, a skilled provocateur and moderator, subtly steering the debate toward maximum tension.

The result? A two hour-long intellectual melee. No consensus. No resolution. Just deep philosophical fissures laid bare—and, I’ll admit, a compelling display of rhetorical firepower.

Yet what struck me most was not who “won,” but what was missing.

Three lanes, one collision

The debate centered around a shared premise: that agentic AI—the kind capable of initiating actions, adapting to environments, and learning autonomously—is real, fast-moving, and deeply disruptive. All three guests, to varying degrees, agreed on that much.

Where they diverged was in tone, framing, and underlying beliefs:

•Amjad Masad framed AI as a profoundly liberating force. He sees a world where coding is no longer a gate-kept skill. With AI copilots, anyone can build. I’ve shown this in my own reporting, chronicling how  how non-technical individuals are already harnessing AI to solve complex, high-stakes problems on their own terms. For Masad, AI is capital. And capital in the hands of ordinary people means economic revolution.

•Daniel Priestley amplified this optimism. His mantra: adapt or perish. AI is not just a productivity booster, it’s a “cognitive workforce” that will reward the bold. For Priestley, the transformation is Darwinian. Those who embrace the shift will thrive. Those who hesitate will fade.

•Bret Weinstein slammed on the brakes. Hard. An evolutionary biologist by training, Weinstein argued that AI agents are not tools. They are complex adaptive systems—like ecosystems or market economies—that evolve in ways their creators can neither predict nor control. His warnings were stark: runaway complexity, loss of oversight, systemic collapse.

Steven Bartlett, to his credit, let the fissures breathe. He asked good questions. He made room for discomfort. And he didn’t force synthesis.

But while the panel was diverse in ideology, it was also incomplete.

What they didn’t say

Watching the episode, I kept waiting for someone to say what I’ve seen firsthand over the past 18 months: that agency isn’t theoretical. It’s already being reclaimed.

I’ve interviewed cybersecurity engineers using AI to spot anomalies in real time. I’ve profiled caregivers using AI to help a child speak, or to untangle healthcare red tape. I’ve witnessed my own daughter-in-law wield ChatGPT to uncover obscure Greek ancestry records, ultimately securing a second citizenship.

These aren’t anecdotes. They’re signals.

Signals that the future isn’t being built only by venture-backed founders or academic theorists. It’s being shaped—quietly, imperfectly, persistently—by people far outside the AI echo chamber.

To Masad’s credit, he hinted at this. He spoke passionately about unexpected creators. About how, on Replit, kids with no formal training are coding apps and bots that scale globally.

This, to me, is the crux.

The panelists sparred over whether AI would empower or destroy us. But the more pressing question isn’t what AI will do. It’s what we will do with it.

Polarity vs. humility

Bartlett’s debate went viral for good reason: it dramatized the stakes. Techno-optimism versus existential dread. Acceleration versus caution. Masad and Priestley versus Weinstein.

But my recent column reached a smaller audience. It offered no fireworks. No doom-laced soundbites. Just a textured narrative of how real people—from tenants to musicians to terminally ill patients—are already using AI to reclaim voice, power, and clarity.

That contrast itself tells a story.

We are in a moment where extremity gets amplified. What travels is not nuance, but polarity.

And yet, it’s nuance that holds the key. Nuance, and intention.

Agency is not a punchline

Weinstein is not wrong to worry. Complex systems can spiral. Ecosystems can collapse. AI can be deployed—has already been deployed—in ways that reinforce inequality, enable surveillance, and erode trust.

But to assume that these systems are self-directing, that human judgment is already obsolete—that’s not realism. That’s surrender.

Priestley’s call to action—”adapt or perish”—has some truth. But it risks commodifying agency. Reducing this moment to a hustle, a race, a game of who can leverage AI fastest.

I’m not buying either extreme.

What I’m seeing, again and again, is something quieter. Something slower. Something more real.

Agency is being rebuilt, not just in Silicon Valley garages, but in public libraries. In classrooms. In elder care facilities. In homes.

AI isn’t replacing human decision-making. It’s scaffolding it. When deployed wisely, it doesn’t erase judgment—it sharpens it.

What comes next

There’s value in debates like the one Bartlett hosted. They surface tensions. They reveal fault lines. They keep us alert.

But we also need storytelling. We need pattern recognition. We need narrative journalism that doesn’t default to hype or despair.

That’s why I wrote my last column. That’s why I’m writing this one.

If we assume we’re powerless, we are. If we engage, even clumsily, we aren’t.

It’s true that AI is evolving faster than most institutions can respond. But that doesn’t mean we’ve lost control. It means we’re being tested.

Tested to govern wisely. To teach differently. To work more humanely. To design defaults that protect the vulnerable.

The tools are here. The stakes are clear. The timeline is tight.

But the outcome? That’s still in our hands. I’ll keep watch and keep reporting.

Pulitzer Prize-winning business journalist Byron V. Acohido is dedicated to fostering public awareness about how to make the Internet as private and secure as it ought to be.

(Editor’s note: A machine assisted in creating this content. I used ChatGPT-4o to accelerate research, to scale correlations, to distill complex observations and to tighten structure, grammar, and syntax. The analysis and conclusions are entirely my own—drawn from lived experience and editorial judgment honed over decades of investigative reporting.)

June 6th, 2025 | My Take | Top Stories