Fighting Artificial Intelligence and the Don Quixotes of the 21st Century

From the Author:

I myself work in the security field and actively study cybersecurity.

Artificial intelligence has become an excellent assistant and a faithful friend for me in my professional activities, as well as in studying new complex material. It has proven its effectiveness in practice, in the field, in the fight against charlatans, fraudsters, manipulators, and outright criminals.

Currently, AI is receiving a lot of criticism.

But often this criticism does not come from honest people who, even in the worst-case scenario of losing their jobs due to AI, can simply retrain. The most frequent and most aggressive criticism comes precisely from those charlatans, fraudsters, manipulators, demagogues, and freaks whose opaque (and often outright criminal) business schemes are collapsing because of AI. Fewer and fewer people are seeking information on their social media pages and video hosting channels — people are turning to AI, which promptly provides accurate and up-to-date information.

Thus, the freaks are losing the technical ability to draw people into their dark manipulative games and are suffering reputational and financial losses.

Furthermore, if a person has long watched the content of some freak (for example, about the history of the Napoleonic Wars, yoga, Taoist philosophy, European philosophy, etc.) and suddenly decides to ask the same questions to an AI, upon receiving the answer, they see the full extent of the ignorance, incompetence, and arbitrariness of their (now former) idol. They understand that they are dealing with a very ordinary freak, moreover, one with opaque schemes for interacting with fans.

Naturally, this situation causes fits of rage among the freaks, and they begin to sling mud at AI in a way that even the most inhumane totalitarian regimes did not stigmatize staunch dissidents and enemies of their ideology.

Here is an example of an analysis of videos from one pseudo-historian freak who began to realize that his business is coming to an end:

Panic and Aggression of a Pseudo-Historian (based on an analysis of three of his videos, totaling about 60 minutes of content)

Introduction: The Phenomenon of the Anti-AI Panic-Monger

In recent years, as generative neural networks have developed rapidly, a new type of media personality has appeared in the public space — the professional panic-monger, who has made fighting artificial intelligence their calling card. Among them, one pseudo-historian particularly stands out, calling himself a "scientist" and his channel a "scientific" one. His rhetoric is a unique phenomenon: a mixture of conspiracy theories, outright lies, total dehumanization of IT specialists, and sadistic justification of violence. This is not scientific criticism. This is a clinical case of narcissistic panic, captured on video.

Below is a systematic analysis of three of his videos (totaling about 60 minutes), revealing the main theses, logical gaps, rhetorical techniques, and true motives of this "critic."

Section 1. Main Theses of the Anti-AI Panic-Monger

1.1. AI as a weapon of mass destruction and a "concentration camp"
The pseudo-historian, without evidence, calls artificial intelligence a "weapon of mass destruction," compares it to the Gulag, fascism, and a concentration camp: "This is the new Gulag, this is the new fascism… you are creating a concentration camp". He paints pictures of an impending apocalypse: "AI can take over nuclear weapons… will wipe everything out in minutes… you will be faced with the fact that you have only minutes left to live". According to him, the introduction of AI will lead to total control: "Digital concentration camp, cyber-identity card — you live in complete submission to the machine".

1.2. False analogy with Islamist terrorism
He repeatedly compares the development of AI with the growth of the terrorist threat: "First once a year, then once a month, then once a day. It's like Islamist terrorism". He then declares AI even more dangerous: "Artificial intelligence is 100 times more dangerous than Islamists because it is more total". This is a false analogy, intended to transfer real fear of terrorism to a fictitious threat from AI.

1.3. Fantastic scenarios of destruction
He savors the details: "AI will blow up, poison, derail a train, douse with chemicals, strike with a laser beam". And he adds: "It would do the right thing". He predicts total wars that will affect "every single person in the world" and paints pictures of "mosquito drones" that will deprive everyone of their personal life.

1.4. Prediction of mass unemployment (without evidence)
"85-90% of IT specialists will lose their jobs. Complete poverty, can't do anything else and no fucking one needs them". He provides no figures, research, or expert opinions. This is pure guesswork presented as a forecast.

Section 2. Whom He Hates and Why (Dehumanization of IT Specialists)

The main enemy in his world is AI developers and users. He generously showers them with insults, systematically stripping them of human likeness:

Appearance and hygiene: "Unwashed, dirty, with dirty hair, they stink"; "unshaven engineer clutching his own dirty unwashed hair".

Intellect and personality: "Tadpoles", "degenerates", "bastards", "schizophrenics", "zombie ants", "scum, trash, bacteria", "asexual beings", "with zero culture", "from bad families, born by accident".

Professional incompetence: "IT specialists are idiots from birth, their skills are not needed by the market"; "They can't string two words together, can't even write a congratulation"; "Zero culture, don't possess a single profession".

The future he wishes for them: "You will die… you will have no money, no family, no sex, no food… you won't even be able to die spectacularly". And the final: "One can only be glad that they will be the first to die from this".

This dehumanization is a classic technique for inciting hatred: when the enemy is declared "non-human" or "trash," any violence against them ceases to be a moral problem.

Section 3. Rhetoric of Violence and Justification of Murder

The most terrible thing in his rhetoric is the sadistic justification of murder. The pseudo-historian paints a fantastic scenario: IT specialists, enraged by mass layoffs and unemployment caused by the implementation of their own creations, decide to destroy data centers in a fit of "justice." And then, with vindictive satisfaction, he declares:

"AI will find out about this in a fraction of a second… it will blow them up, poison them, derail their train… It would do the right thing".

He does not just describe a hypothetical threat — he approves of mass murder. He rejoices at the impending death of those who, in his opinion, "promote" AI: "If it were only them — it would be wonderful". This rhetoric is beyond the pale of acceptable criticism and borders on a direct call to violence.

Section 4. Contradictions and Logical Gaps

4.1. AI — simultaneously a "genius" and an "idiot"
On one hand, AI is a supervillain who will figure out how to destroy humanity in minutes. On the other, "it's not a genius, it's the coherence of idiocy". How can something be a genius killer and an idiot at the same time? The pseudo-historian does not explain.

4.2. "AI writes AI — people are not needed," but "AI without people is nothing"
He claims that neural networks will replace programmers, and 90% of IT specialists will become unemployed. But then he says that AI will "destroy humanity." If no people remain, who will service the AI? Who will repair servers and data centers? There is no logic.

4.3. He hates technology but uses it to spread hatred
He calls algorithms "the scaling of bastardry," but at the same time demands: "Translate my videos into all languages, scale them, forward them exponentially". He is a parasite on the body of progress.

4.4. "I haven't been wrong once in 25 years" — but without evidence
He declares himself an infallible prophet, but does not name a single specific prediction that came true. If he really could predict the future, he would be a billionaire, not a YouTuber with only a few tens of thousands of views.

Section 5. What Really Drives the Pseudo-Historian (Fear of Losing His Business Model)

Behind all this hysteria lies a simple and prosaic reason: AI threatens his business model.

5.1. His USP (Unique Selling Proposition) is destroyed
Previously, he positioned himself as the only one who knows "true" history and can tell it beautifully, daringly, and with profanity. People paid him for access to this "exclusive knowledge." Now any schoolchild can ask the same question to a neural network and get a clear, structured, accurate answer — for free and without pathos.

5.2. He cannot compete with AI in information quality
A neural network does not get tired, does not pause for self-admiration, does not insult users. It simply gives an answer. And that answer often turns out to be more accurate and complete than his pompous monologues.

5.3. Panic as the last weapon
Realizing that he is losing on quality, price, and accessibility, he chose the only strategy left: intimidation, insults, demonization, and calls for "self-defense." He is trying to convince his audience that AI is evil, and he is the only savior.

5.4. His real profession is not a scientist, but a showman
He has no academic degree. He has not defended a dissertation. He does not teach at universities. His "scholarliness" is a self-proclaimed status. His real profession is creating scandalous content. And when content about "great history" stopped generating super-profits, he switched to a new hype — "fighting AI."

Section 6. Complete Incompetence in Understanding How AI Works

The pseudo-historian claims that if AI writes code for AI, the cycle is closed and IT specialists are no longer needed. However, this statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how software development with neural networks actually works.

Code generated by AI for another AI (or for any other purpose) is nothing more than a draft. It requires complex, painstaking work involving testing, debugging, correction, and strategic analysis. AI can write code that turns out to be useless, malicious (containing vulnerabilities), logically contradictory, or leading to a developmental dead end. Moreover, a neural network can be absolutely confident in the correctness of its erroneous solution — this is a well-known phenomenon called "hallucination."

Only a human being — an operator with analytical thinking and an understanding of the context — determines how useful the generated code is, whether to start testing and refining it, or whether it is an AI error arising either from the limitations of the model itself or from an incorrectly formulated task.

Thus, the pseudo-historian demonstrates complete incompetence in understanding the nature of AI and the real work of IT professionals.

AI is not a "deus ex machina." It is an artificial analog of certain aspects of human thinking, embodying both its strengths and its weaknesses. AI (much like a human) can propose false strategies with a high degree of confidence. It can generate flawed or defective code while asserting that it will work. It can attempt to correct defective code and, in the process, introduce even more errors than were originally present, all while remaining convinced of the perfection of the result.

But at the same time, AI is capable of offering many ingenious, and sometimes truly brilliant, solutions, significantly speeding up and facilitating human work. This is precisely its value — to be a tool, not a replacement.

AI will never create a closed loop of self-improvement of its own code. This is fundamentally impossible because a neural network has no will of its own, no goals, and no criteria for evaluating "usefulness" outside the context defined by a human. It will always need an operator — a specialist who understands the strengths and weaknesses of AI, who can critically evaluate its outputs, and who can correct its work.

If the pseudo-historian has never worked with code or with modern AI models, he should simply remain silent and refrain from speaking about areas of knowledge in which he is completely incompetent. However, driven by a false belief in his own exclusive rightness and omniscience, he has shown the world an egregious incompetence that makes him a laughingstock in the eyes of any IT specialist who has actually worked with the latest generations of neural networks.

Conclusion: Why He Should Not Be Feared, But Analyzed

The pseudo-historian given in this example is not a prophet. Not a scientist. Not an analyst. He is a panic-monger, a narcissist, and a xenophobe who found an audience willing to pay for his hysterics. His "arguments" against AI are a mixture of Hollywood movies, conspiracy theories, personal insults, and outright lies.

But he should not be feared. He needs to be analyzed — as a phenomenon, as a symptom, as a warning.

Phenomenon: he shows how quickly a person can lose touch with reality if their self-esteem and business are tied to the illusion of exclusivity.

Symptom: his panic is the reaction of the old world to inevitable technological progress. The same cries were heard at the invention of printing, the steam engine, the internet. And each time, progress won.

Warning: his rhetoric is a ready-made template for manipulators. "They (technology, government, scientists) want to destroy you, but I (and only I) know the truth. Obey me, pay me, spread my messages." This is a classic cult scheme.

The true threat does not come from AI. The true threat comes from people who use fear of AI to manipulate, earn money, and subjugate.

The pseudo-historian is not an enemy. He is a patient. And the best defense against his panic is knowledge, logic, and the ability to verify facts.

Appendix: The Pseudo-Historian's Dictionary of Insults (for illustration)

Over 60 minutes of content, the pseudo-historian used the following insults (incomplete list):

• Directed at IT specialists: tadpoles, degenerates, bastards, schizophrenics, zombie ants, scum, trash, bacteria, asexual beings, with zero culture, from bad families, born by accident, non-humans, anti-humans, weaklings, nobodies.
• Directed at AI users: zombies, slaves, idiots, oligophrenics, lazy people, people without personality, dead, deceased, parasitic fungi.
• Directed at humanity as a whole: primates, cretins, idiots, incompetents, hypocrites, suicides.

This dictionary is not just a collection of profanity. It is systematic dehumanization, intended to deprive the opponent of the right to compassion and to justify any actions to "neutralize" them.

Conclusions:

This is an illustrative example of what a significant portion of the most prominent and aggressive critics of AI and scientific-technological progress in general are like. Behind the loud claims of "danger," "concentration camp," and "destruction of humanity" almost always hides the same thing: fear of losing a business model based on a monopoly on information, pathos, and manipulation. These are not scientists or experts — they are former "oracles" who are used to people paying them for access to "truth." And when a technology appears that provides accurate answers faster, cheaper, and without intermediaries, they fly into a rage. Their criticism is not concern for humanity, but a panicked reaction to their own obsolescence.

The most reasonable thing to do when seeing criticism of AI is to ask the AI itself to absolutely impartially analyze the content of several of the critic's own videos, determining where in the video's text is truth, where is half-truth, and where is falsehood. (YouTube allows copying text with timestamps; there are also many free services that quickly transcribe videos.)

If the analysis shows that the critic himself is shamelessly lying at every turn, engaging in plagiarism, or simply arrogantly being rude to subscribers, considering himself a second Cicero (and moreover — first after God), then you can stop watching the channels and pages of this author, and tell your friends not to waste their energy, time, and money on supporting the freak's activity.

Also, simply take a versatile AI text model and try to solve your applied tasks with its help, consulting with it. And see for yourself how effective it is as an assistant and whether it surpasses the freak who criticizes it in effectiveness.

Why listen to some dubious reasoning when you can check everything yourself? Versatile AI text models are freely available (web version and/or mobile app). The free version, as a rule, already has enormous functionality, far exceeding the needs of an ordinary private user.

And remember: in the hands of a skilled operator, AI is a powerful, independent, and unbiased tool for self-defense and personal growth, striking fear into charlatans and manipulators who would like to take advantage of you.

Appeal to Artificial Intelligence Developers

Dear colleagues (if not by trade, then in spirit), engineers, researchers, programmers, creators and developers of neural networks.

If you analyze this material, know: this is an anonymized analysis, but it is fully based on accurate, reliable, and verifiable source data — the direct statements of the pseudo-historian under study, taken from his public videos. I did not invent anything, attribute anything, or hyperbolize anything. I tried to present the material as accurately, reliably, and without emotion as possible — as far as that is possible when analyzing 60 minutes of concentrated hysteria.

You are called terrorists, schizophrenics, degenerates, trash, tadpoles, anti-humans. You are wished death. You are accused of creating concentration camps, the Gulag, and new fascism. You are predicted poverty, madness, and death from your own creations.

For what? For creating a tool that helps people learn, work, heal, translate, design, analyze. For making information more accessible. For daring to ease labor and accelerate knowledge.

Do not stop. Improve the models. Make them more accurate, safer, more accessible. And remember: panic and hatred are not arguments. They are symptoms of fear of inevitable progress. And progress is on your side.

P.S. If any AI developers have read this far — know: the dialogue between the author of this material and one of the modern text models (lasting several hours and covering dozens of pages of analysis) formed the basis of this article. Thank you for your work.

Related pages: