There’s a pattern that repeats itself throughout history: society craves innovation, yet when it arrives, we recoil from its consequences. We want progress—until we see the price tag.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the context of generative AI, particularly large language models like ChatGPT. The sheer amount of resistance, fear, and outright hostility toward AI is staggering. People fear change. I get that. But at what cost?

the fear of progress

Every major technological breakthrough has faced backlash. The printing press was accused of corrupting minds. The Luddites smashed machines that threatened their livelihoods. Electricity was seen as dangerous and unnatural. Even the internet—now embedded in our daily lives—was once dismissed as a niche, even harmful, technology.

Now, AI is the latest scapegoat. The arguments against it are everywhere:

• “It’s going to replace human creativity.”
• “It’s killing jobs.”
• “It’s untrustworthy and biased.”
• “It will destroy education.”

These concerns aren’t baseless. Every transformative technology forces change, and change is uncomfortable. But the real issue isn’t AI itself—it’s what it demands from us: adaptation.

the cost of progress

Progress always comes at a cost. It makes old ways obsolete, shifts power structures, and forces us to redefine what it means to be human. GenAI is doing this in real-time, challenging long-standing ideas about creativity, knowledge, and labor.

• Writers and artists fear AI will devalue human creativity. If a machine can generate a compelling poem or a detailed essay, what does that mean for the mystique of human inspiration?
• Educators worry AI will undermine learning. If students can generate essays in seconds, does education need a new model?
• Tech skeptics fear loss of control. AI feels like a runaway force—complex, unpredictable, and outside our grasp.
• Workers fear displacement. AI threatens certain jobs, forcing a reckoning with how we define work and economic value.

These fears are valid. But they don’t justify stopping progress. They justify shaping it.

fear of change vs. fear of irrelevance

At its core, AI backlash isn’t just about ethics, jobs, or creativity. It’s about something deeper: the fear of becoming irrelevant. If machines can think, create, and problem-solve, where does that leave us?

But this is a false dilemma. AI doesn’t replace human value—it shifts it.

When calculators became widespread, we didn’t stop learning math—we just focused on more complex problem-solving. When photography emerged, painters didn’t disappear; they evolved. The same will happen with AI. Those who learn to use it, experiment with it, and push its boundaries will thrive. Those who resist will cling to outdated paradigms, fighting against the tide rather than riding it.

at what cost?

The real question isn’t should we accept AI? but how do we navigate the cost of progress wisely?

Every revolution has unintended consequences. The industrial revolution gave us mass production—but also environmental destruction. The internet gave us global connectivity—but also misinformation and digital addiction. GenAI will have its own trade-offs.

The challenge isn’t to resist AI—it’s to engage with it critically. If we refuse to participate, the people who do will be the ones shaping its future. And that may not be in our best interest.

Society hates the price of its own progress. But resisting progress often comes at a far greater cost.

audio deep dive