# VET: A Framework for Analyzing AI Discourse

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01929 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.01929/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 106 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15497/) (2026)
- [Self-Taught Optimizer (STOP): Recursively Self-Improving Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02304/) (2023)
- [Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08872/) (2025)
- [Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16666/) (2026)
- [Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.03731/) (2019)
- [Investigating Affective Use and Emotional Well-being on ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03888/) (2025)
- [AI Companions Reduce Loneliness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19096/) (2024)
- [How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.17473/) (2025)
- [Generative Ghosts: Anticipating Benefits and Risks of AI Afterlives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01662/) (2024)
- [Quantifying CBRN Risk in Frontier Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21133/) (2025)
- [Misrepresented Technological Solutions in Imagined Futures: The Origins and Dangers of AI Hype in the Research Community](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15244/) (2024)
- [AI and Consciousness: Shifting Focus Towards Tractable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06965/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Public discourse on AI has become polarized; exaggerated positions on AI in traditional and social media threaten the development of AI Literacy among the general public. In this article, I introduce the VET Framework, a method for categorizing AI discourse along the dimensions of valence, effectiveness, and trajectory. I show how this framework can be used to identify, compare, and critique prevalent narratives of AI Hype, AI Doom, AI Denial, and AI Normalcy. Using VET, I analyze how each of these four stances exaggerates some aspects of the current state and/or likely evolution of AI, and illustrate how the VET framework can serve as an AI Literacy tool by supporting the ``vetting'' of polarized AI discourse.