A new Quartz perspective challenges the dramatic narratives that cast artificial intelligence as either humanity’s savior or its existential threat. Instead of focusing on extreme outcomes — like AI triggering utopia or apocalypse — researchers argue AI should be viewed more like other transformative technologies such as electricity or the printing press. These technologies reshaped society over decades, offering big benefits while also introducing familiar problems to manage through regulation, adaptation, and iterative improvement.
According to that “middle path” view, AI’s impact will be significant but gradual, unfolding through real‑world challenges such as bias in hiring systems, media distortion, and shifts in labor markets. The suggestion is that policymakers, technologists, and society should concentrate on practical issues that are already emerging rather than only debating distant hypothetical scenarios. This approach echoes how previous technologies were regulated and integrated into everyday life, giving people and institutions time to adjust.
Framing AI as a “normal” yet powerful technology doesn’t dismiss serious risks, but it does change how we prepare for them. Just as past innovations required new safety standards — like food safety laws or aviation crash investigations — AI’s adoption will likely necessitate ongoing, incremental work to mitigate harms. This includes long‑term planning for discrimination, privacy, and misinformation, alongside more routine oversight and adaptation.
Critics of the extreme narratives say they can distort priorities: utopian visions help raise investment money, while apocalyptic projections can justify radical regulatory stances. Focusing on a balanced perspective emphasizes patience, empirical study, and deliberate progress rather than treating AI development as a race with only winners or losers. By embracing a more nuanced understanding, stakeholders may be better positioned to handle the real impacts of AI as they happen.
