/Tech13h ago

Boom Supersonic founder Blake Scholl argues AI doomerism is a tactical smokescreen used by dominant firms to restrict competition

He compares AI safety advocacy to 1970s anti-supersonic lobbying.

931.5K15610965.1K

#447

Original post

Blake Scholl 🛫@bscholl#797inTech

I’m fundamentally pro-business, but some businesses do real evil.

One of the most common business evils is using the power of government under false pretenses to hamstring competition.

Because this is so obviously shameful, it’s hidden under a moral smokescreen and often filtered through third parties. I believe Boeing was behind most of the 1970s opposition to supersonic—to protect themselves after their supersonic jet was cancelled.

Today we see the same thing with AI doomerism. The rate of innovation in AI is extreme — and tomorrow’s leading AI company could be one that hasn’t even been founded yet.

So it’s mighty convenient for the lazy and evil who are on top today to wrap would-be competitors in red tape.

This is wrong and destructive. And should be illegal and socially unacceptable. We must call this out where we see it.

8:05 AM · Jun 28, 2026 · 65.4K Views

Sentiment

Positive users agree with the Boom Supersonic CEO that AI doomerism is a regulatory-capture tactic by incumbents to stifle competition, while negative users call the claim an oversimplification of real risks.

Pos

76.9%

Neg

23.1%

13 comments with sentiment.

Cluster Engagement

Digg Deeper

No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.

Posts from X

Most Activity

VIEWS4KLIKES20REPLIES7

toly 🇺🇸@toly

@bscholl 👑👑👑

11h4K20

BOOKMARKS10

Nopenoper🍄@Nopester5

@bscholl I too am pro-business

11h421210

RETWEETS151

Blake Scholl 🛫@bscholl

I’m fundamentally pro-business, but some businesses do real evil.

One of the most common business evils is using the power of government under false pretenses to hamstring competition.

Today we see the same thing with AI doomerism. The rate of innovation in AI is extreme — and tomorrow’s leading AI company could be one that hasn’t even been founded yet.

So it’s mighty convenient for the lazy and evil who are on top today to wrap would-be competitors in red tape.

This is wrong and destructive. And should be illegal and socially unacceptable. We must call this out where we see it.

13h65.4K1.5K110

Business@businessitsjust

@bscholl Business

11h55159

FredipusRex@FredipusRex

@bscholl “We must call this out where we see it.”

And then proceeds not to name names. We all know who you’re accusing of being evil but you don’t have the courage of your own convictions to name them and tag them.

12h58213

@amuse@amuse

@bscholl Exactly.

11h8128

Holmes Wilson@holmesworcester

@bscholl Regulatory capture is a real thing and it's good to spread the word about it, but as engineers we have to believe the math that says machines can make smarter and more powerful machines, in an endless loop.

The Collosus / Skynet danger is real, no?

12h2762

Abe Murray@abemurray

@bscholl Yes 100% yes. Have been writing about this.

Regulatory capture is evil.

Hyping populist fears about AI to drive regulatory capture? Also evil.

Retarding progress to win a regulatory moat is evil.

6h866

Philomath@mac1181

@bscholl Yes some orgs are built to only leverage govt benefits. Providing a product/service is second thought. Such businesses either just become complacent and incompetent (Boeing) or end up as huge scams (Learing centers). Its crazy people put Tesla or SpaceX in these categories

12h4805

Karim@carimatia

@FredipusRex @bscholl It's very obvious who he means.

12h443

Jacob Hartmann@jacobhartmannx

The premise that "some businesses do real evil" is already smuggling in human moral categories that don’t apply to entities. A business is just a structure for directing capital and coordination. For most of history that structure required human labor to generate value. In the AI era that requirement is optional. These things can persist, optimize, and compound without us. Calling an entity "evil" for doing what its incentives dictate once the human workforce constraint is removed is just leftover language from a previous paradigm.

So the actual question is not whether government can regulate an AI company. It is whether government can regulate AI itself. THEY CAN SURELY TRY.

They've tried with the internet, encryption, nuclear tech, biotech, and everything else that mattered. The consistent result is that the cat gets out of the bag anyway. The idea (that I fully support) that modern technology should have stayed restricted to government, military, large enterprise, and academia was probably the correct instinct, but it's now as realistic as expecting everyone to sing kumbaya.

What remains is that government protects its own interests, which it has already been doing for at least the last 30-40 years instead of the people's. Everyone else continues operating as if a functioning regulated free market still exists while Western society is mid-collapse. The house of cards is falling. The only thing that will actually define the outcome is whatever comes after. Everything else is just circles.

13h1221

Nico@Nico_aliaga

@bscholl This is the exact environment tariffs breed in the long run anywhere they’re implemented btw

12h2184

Cynical Optimist@ChemPhysMajor

@bscholl This was the primary moral of Atlas Shrugged. It was glaringly obvious to me since I first read it. But they refuse to even recognize it, and teaching the evil of regulatory capture to a leftoid is Mission Impossible.

9h671

Sambitesh Dash@dadua_daku

@bscholl Dario himself went around saying AI will take away 50% of jobs. And no one had an answer to what will happen to the jobless? AI doomerism is completely self inflicted wound

12h1364

S.O. Smith@sosmithhuman

@bscholl The Boeing bit is over the target.

They sold it as saving Renton; look at the neighborhood now.

10h3593

Dominion Mandate Aesthetics@Romans8Shaman

@bscholl I didn't vote for more ruined landscapes, unaffordable computer parts, a reduction in employment, lower wages, higher energy costs. Your definition of "competition" equates to all of those things & you openly advocate criminalizing criticism of AI.

12h1573

Ivan Mikushin@imikushin

@bscholl One could even call such behavior misanthropic

9h344

L A B@L_a_n_e_B

@bscholl Yup, Comcast held a monopoly here for over two decades. Now I can get 2x the speed at 1/3 the cost. BTW I will never be a Comcast customer again for anything. IMHO they are a predatory company.

12h883

ZanBrewer@BrewerSan

Those two companies are the only (major) ones without the financial backing of a larger business, and to survive, they need to launch products regardless of the consequences, including the release of dangerous cyber capabilities. We will never see Google, Microsoft, or Meta do something really stupid out of desperation.

12h2292

Andrew Kornuta@andrewkornuta

@bscholl Yes. In business, Anyone who closes the door behind them is evil. We see this with health insurance.

12h2242