Current attitudes to "AI" are an example of the way that hierarchical power elicits compliance, by psychological methods and the hope of personal benefit.
This is seen in organizations, when management talk about "owning" change.
The desired change (i.e. currently, the implementation of "AI" technologies) is presented as (and may actually be) inevitable.
Therefore the choice presented to those upon whom change is being imposed; is either to suffer the (asserted) humiliation of being compelled kicking-and-screaming into compliance - and thereby having one's helplessness revealed to all and sundry...
Or else "owning" the change; which means accepting its inevitability and adjusting one's own psychology to embrace the valuation that "this change is good!
Or, at least, that the change can be made good...
Or, at least such change can be made good for-me".
The psychological appeal is obvious - instead of being visibly subject to miserable compulsion, one who "owns" the change can pretend to be in control of the process - and happy about it!
And - by pretending the change is good - one can (with a superficially clear conscience!) make the best of it for oneself - in pursuit of money, status, attention, sex... or whatever motivates.
One who "owns" change can "ride the wave" - be a cool surfer! instead of one upon whom the wave crashes.
Indeed, "owning change" is almost wholly to the short-term and this-worldly benefit of those who can perform this psychological act; which is why the process is so common as to be nigh universal.
Owning change is just seen as common sense - making the best of the inevitable...
Pretending to oneself that evil is actually good - until we actually do believe that evil is good...
And surely nobody can be blamed for doing that?
