What Do We Mean When We Say 'F*ck AI'?: Moral Panic, Semantic Indeterminacy, and the Reification of Techno-Capitalism

arXiv:2611.05574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Academic and (increasingly) public resistance to artificial intelligence (AI) often blurs the line between legitimate critique of techno-capitalist exploitation and (inflated) existential risk. Moreover, discourse around AI can sometimes resemble a "moral panic" where an apparently clear and identifiable scapegoat is targeted in lieu of the complex systemic problems that are causing (genuine and justified) social anxieties. However, AI is not a monolith. In this paper, we explore the environmental, political, and socio-technical consequences of the semantic indeterminacy of discourse about "AI" in conjunction with the increasing moral panic encompassing these technologies. We argue that since the umbrella term "AI" lacks a coherent, singular referent, the moral panic about AI inadvertently reifies the concept of an autonomous, singular agent with inherent and often autonomous tendencies, which aligns with corporate narratives. Hence, well-intentioned critique, activist pushback, and public protest paradoxically amplifies hype-based discussions of AI, thus validating the "threat" narrative that tech leaders deploy to exaggerate their products' capabilities and market value, further consolidating and centralising their political and socio-economic power. Moreover, if "AI" does not refer to a unified class of technologies, then policy intended to govern "AI" will systematically (and necessarily) fail. We conclude by proposing ways forward to improve AI literacy, enforce accountability, and repurpose existing regulation in order t

The paper argues that moral panic about AI reifies the concept of an autonomous agent, amplifying corporate narratives and consolidating their power.

The paper critiques AI discourse as a moral panic that conflates legitimate concerns with exaggerated fears, potentially bolstering tech monopolies and failing governance. While it highlights risks of misinformation and policy missteps, it also aims to improve AI literacy and accountability, proposing a more positive future. Overall, implications are mixed and primarily cautionary.

This is a conceptual/discourse-analysis paper, not an empirical claim about AI capabilities or deployment effects. It argues current critique dynamics inadvertently entrench corporate power and undermine policy, a mildly concerning implication, but it rests on argumentation rather than measured evidence.

The article claims that the vague definition of 'AI' leads to moral panic, which inadvertently benefits techno-capitalist entities by reifying AI as an autonomous agent. This also validates exaggerated threat narratives, consolidating corporate power, and ensures policy failure. This suggests a materially concerning, negative implication for society.

The text argues that public resistance to AI often misidentifies the problem, leading to ineffective policy and increased corporate power. It suggests that this dynamic is harmful to society. However, it also implies that better AI literacy and regulation could lead to positive outcomes.

SOURCE     arXiv cs.CY (Computers and Society) (tier 1)
   ↓
DOCUMENT   78655b9f-318a-4857-8833-e6b55dd2e666
           https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05574
   ↓
EVIDENCE   2 extracted excerpts
   ↓
MODEL RUN  5 runs, methodology 1.0.1
   ↓
SCORE      -46  (Adverse)
   ↓
CONFIDENCE 76%