Hank Green identifies the standard transformative-technology argument as a three-step claim: (1) this technology is very powerful; (2) powerful technologies transform society; therefore (3) this technology will help solve our biggest problems. Step (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). What actually follows is that society will be transformed — in what ways is undetermined.
Verbatim, from the transcript: “Three does not follow from one and two. What follows from one and two is therefore our society will be transformed in what ways it is transformed is not clear.”
The fallacy matters because it is the implicit case for AI-as-savior. Power to reshape and power to improve are different powers. The internet and personal computing both transformed society without solving the housing crisis or eliminating preventable disease — and there is no reason to assume AI breaks that pattern unless the specific blockers are information-shaped.
For sermon use: this is a clean general-purpose frame for talking about why the gospel is not “more information” and why a better-informed church is not automatically a more loving one. The structure of the error is the same in both domains.