When historians look back on the past few weeks in terms of Big Tech, artificial intelligence and politics, they might just mark it as a moment when the general public grew tired of boundless tech optimism and incredibly sensitive executives.
More broadly, especially regarding Big Tech and AI, society might have collectively witnessed a series of "jump the shark" incidents.
For those younger readers out there who might not be familiar with that phrase, I'm referring to the moment on the once hit US sitcom, Happy Days, when the character known as Fonzie had to use jet skis and jump over shark tank to prove himself.
Many argued that the scenario was too fanciful for the sitcom and led to its eventual ratings demise. In turn, the phrase, "jump the shark" has been used to describe any sort of significant happening that changes the public's mindset.
In this writer's opinion, the technology sector and the leaders of the sector jumped the shark on several occasions recently.
Last week, the high-flying and increasingly powerful OpenAI invited a firestorm when chief financial officer Sarah Friar seemed to imply that the US government should be open to the idea of providing a "backstop" for its financing.
For many in the US still hurting from inflation, stagnant wages and an increasing threat of layoffs due to AI advancements, the sheer thought of the government providing a backstop to an already flush-with-cash OpenAI prompted thoughts of rage.
OpenAI's chief financial officer later took to the LinkedIn social media platform to try to say that her words had been taken out of context, only for many commenters to respond that even with context, they were still ill conceived.
The company's chief executive Sam Altman, one of the most prominent figures in the AI world and someone known for having boundless enthusiasm for the sector, finally stepped in to try to quell the anger.
"We do not have or want government guarantees for OpenAI data centres," part of his lengthy statement read, eventually pivoting to the idea that OpenAI simply wants to be able to "apply AI to hard problems" and cure "deadly diseases". In turn, Mr Altman said that OpenAI was simply open to ideas that would help the company and the US "meet the moment".
Some might argue that given its importance and rapid rise, it's far too easy to pick on OpenAI for what they say is just a misunderstanding, and that point is well taken.
Yet several days earlier, there was another "jump the shark" moment from Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and perhaps more importantly, the man responsible for creating one of the world's first popular browsers, Netscape.
Mr Andreessen, who has become a major supporter of US President Donald Trump as well as an advocate for the unfettered and unregulated development of AI, sought to address a recent MIT study finding that "95 per cent of organisations found zero return despite enterprise investment of $30 billion to $40 billion into Generative AI".
The VC co-founder, already known for being sensitive to any hint of criticism, turned to sarcasm.
"It's over folks. Pack it in," he wrote on X.
Make no mistake, he enjoyed some support in the comment section of his post, but there was also a healthy amount of nuance from those who defended the study.
It should also be pointed out that MIT is hardly known as an institution with an axe to grind, let alone being an institution that rages against technology.
Just a few days later, when Pope Leo posted on X about the importance of imbuing technology with "ethical and spiritual weight", Mr Andreessen posted a meme in an attempt to mock and dismiss the Pope's message.
The technology tycoon's post has since been deleted amid a wave of angry responses, but as we all know, the internet never forgets.
By now you've probably noticed a trend emerging.
Some of the wealthiest people leading the most influential technology and finance companies in the world are becoming increasingly sensitive to any hint of constructive criticism related to AI.
One of the phrases gaining traction to describe anyone who has qualms about artificial intelligence, "AI doomers", is often thrown around, unfairly creating a chilling effect on healthy dialogue in technology circles.
Last but certainly not least in the lengthy line of technology figures lashing out at dissent is Alex Karp, chief executive of the undeniably successful AI data mining company Palantir.
Upon finding out that famous investor Michael Burry had essentially lost confidence in Palantir and "short sold" the stock, Mr Karp didn't mince words.
"I think this behaviour is egregious and I’m going to be dancing around when it’s proven wrong,” he said on CNBC.
It's worth pointing out, though it shouldn't need to be pointed out, that nobody is obligated to invest in or keep money in any particular firm, yet Mr Karp couldn't seem to fathom that during his CNBC appearance.
He also implied that those pulling their money were "trying to call the AI revolution into question".
During another interview, Mr Karp also attacked supporters of newly elected New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who campaigned on democratic socialist themes.
"I think the average Ivy League grad voting for this mayor is highly annoyed that their education is not that valuable," he told Axios, seemingly referring to Mr Mamdani's appeal among those worried about the rising cost of living.
"I think that annoys the [expletive] out of people," he added.
This brings us full circle to the rise of Mr Mamdani, who spent months talking about affordability, making New York City buses free and pushing a rent freeze as well as universal child care.
Some of his critics, and make no mistake there were plenty, couldn't comprehend Mr Mamdani's appeal.
His victory, however, should not have been a surprise.
Mr Altman, Mr Andreessen and Mr Karp are all incredibly successful entrepreneurs, but that success does not and should never mean that they're above criticism.
That's especially true when they're fervently pushing for slim to no regulatory guardrails on AI development, which they've all acknowledged will have an impact on the labour market to some extent.
I need to reiterate that I am in no way, shape or form an "AI doomer". Quite the contrary, I'm incredibly excited about the technology that's taken years to come to fruition.
It can level the playing field for many and eventually lead to countless breakthroughs in education, science and energy.
Like AI's true believers claim, it's powerful, so much so that yes, it will impact the labour market in the short term.
So it makes sense that while there's excitement, recent layoffs largely attributed to AI are changing the narrative and yes, changing politics, leading to the increased appeal of those like Mr Mamdani who are pushing for stronger social safety nets.
With that shift solidifying in recent weeks, for whatever reason, many of those at the centre of the AI revolution have reacted not with empathy, but rather with incredulity.
They're not properly reading the room, and in turn, yes, they're jumping the shark.
