The middle distribution of Gen Z’s feelings about AI range from apprehension to downright hatred. Despite the fact that more than half of Gen Z living in the U.S. uses AI regularly, according to a recently released Gallup poll, less than a fifth feel hopeful about the technology. About a third says the technology makes them angry. And nearly half say it makes them afraid.
Gallup’s own senior education researcher, Zach Hrynowski, blamed the bad vibes at least partially on the dwindling job market. The oldest Zoomers, he told Axios, are the angriest, as they are “acutely aware” of the ability of a technology to transform cultural norms without a second thought, unlike a Gen Xer who is trained to see new technology as toys and are still “playing around with AI.”
Indeed, job prospects for the recently graduated Gen Z are abysmal; Bloomberg just reported that 43% of young graduates are “underemployed,” meaning taking on jobs that require less education than they have.
[…]
This is not just a Gen Z problem, either. In the American heartland, data centers are being proposed at a pace that local communities never anticipated and for which they were never asked permission, and they’re increasingly pushing back.
The numbers are serious. According to a report from 10a Labs’ Data Center Watch, at least $18 billion worth of data center projects have been blocked and another $46 billion delayed over the past two years owing to local opposition. At least 142 activist groups across 24 states are now actively organizing to block data center construction and expansion. A Heatmap Pro review of public records found that 25 data center projects were canceled following local pushback in 2025 alone, four times as many as in 2024, with 21 of those cancellations occurring in the second half of the year as electricity costs grew.
The concerns driving this resistance are less about existential AI risk and more about typical kitchen-table complaints; communities consistently cite higher utility bills, water consumption, noise, impacts on property values, and green space destruction as their primary objections. Water use is mentioned as a top concern in more than 40% of contested projects, according to a Heatmap Pro review of public records.
Was it sad when people who looked after horses were made obsolete when we began mass producing cars?
Or people who stoked furnaces?
This romanization of monotonous jobs is silly, and sounds like it wants to thrust us into poverty for some idealistic fantasy that excludes productivity gains. It also seems unrealistic, you cant trust code written by a programmer that randomly hallucinates and cant reliably check their work or explain what they even did.
AI isn’t replacing monotonous jobs though. It’s being used as an excuse to cut good skilled labor for c-suite parasites. And it can’t even do those jobs as well. Garbage take.
I’m not sure AI will ever replace truly skilled labor, because it hallucinates. It replaces people who make PowerPoint’s or Excel documents.
Hi, my job is to make Powerpoint’s and Excel documents. My role is to define the why, what and how to the engineers who build useful stuff in my team. The skill is not in making catchy presentations, it’s in thinking, researching, finding agreements and deciding. And I’m expected to do that by my team. The worst people in my job line are now relying on AI for everything. Sure they create documents faster than me, but they delegate the thinking, the research, the decision making, to an AI bot that can only mimic a thinking process. It’s a gamble: it’ll be good sometimes, it’ll be incomplete and inaccurate most of the time. I don’t know how to use AI. I use it for basic stuff but even repetitive tasks are full of mistakes and it takes me more time to verify everything afterwards.
I am a programmer who uses AI daily, as well as creating it.
Nobody is romanticizing jobs. The problem with AI is one of the contradictions of capitalism - businesses want to pay workers little and have rich customers.
Its also true that more efficient businesses increases living standards.
No, it’s not. It increases productivity. But unless that’s distributed to wages or lower prices, it doesn’t go down to non-owners.