myEarlier this month, a popular lifestyle magazine introduced a new “fashion and lifestyle editor” to its massive social media following. “Reem”Reem, who at first glance looked like a twenty-something woman who understood both fashion and lifestyle, was proudly announced as an “AI-enhanced team member.” That is, a fake person, generated by artificial intelligence. Reem would make product recommendations to SheerLuxe followers—or, to put it another way, do what SheerLuxe would otherwise pay a person to do. The reaction was entirely predictable: Indignationfollowed by a hastily issued apology. One suspects that Reem may not become a permanent fixture on their editorial team.
This is just the latest in a long line of withdrawals from “exciting AI projects” that have been met with fury by the people they are supposed to excite. The Prince Charles cinema in Soho, London, cancelled a screening of an AI-written film in June, because its regular viewers vehemently opposed it. Lego was pressured to remove a series of AI-generated images it posted on its website. Doctor Who began experimenting with generative AI, but stopped quickly After a wave of complaints, a company buys into the AI hype, thinks that jumping on board will make it look innovative, and fails to understand the growing anti-AI sentiment gripping many of its customers.
Behind the backlash lies a number of concerns about AI. The most visceral is its impact on human work: the main effect of using AI in many of these situations is that it deprives a person of the opportunity to do the same job. Then there is the fact that AI systems are designed by Exploiting work AI is a technology that has a tendency to sexualise women, is used to make deepfakes, has caused tech companies to miss their climate targets, and is not understood well enough to mitigate its many risks. Understandably, this has not generated universal adulation. As Hayao Miyazaki, the head of Studio Ghibli, the world-renowned animation studio, has said: “I am completely disgusted… I feel strongly that[AI]is an insult to life itself.”
Some members of the anti-AI movement have They recovered the name “Luddites”. I come from tech circles, where the term Luddite is considered an insult, but this new movement is proud of that designation. As Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine, points out, the original Luddites did not immediately resort to rebellion. They first sought dialogue and compromise. The new Luddites also seek dialogue and compromise. Most realize that AI is here to stay; they are not demanding a rollback, but a more reasonable and fair approach to its adoption. And it is easy to see how they could be more successful than their predecessors. 19th Century CounterpartsThe apocryphal Ned Ludd didn’t have social media. It used to be easier to ignore oppressed workers. The internet is the greatest organizing tool in history.
Anger at AI companies is leading to some unlikely alliances. When the Recording Industry Association of America recently sued two AI music-generating companies for “copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale,” musicians and fans took to the internet to voice their support. “Unbelievable. AI companies have made me root for the damn record labels.” said a composerOld arguments are being put aside as the new threat of AI is addressed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say.
Some would have you believe that AI is pure opportunity, pure advantage, the next great technological revolution that will free humanity from the dark ages we are living in. Speakers at the Tony Blair Institute’s Future of Britain summit a few weeks ago, outlined Why strengthening AI is “the only option for a forward-thinking British government” There is some truth to this: AI, of course, is promising. That promise is mostly an article of faith at the moment, with AI leaders promising technologies that are years away at best and unrealistic at worst. But there are reasons to think there is some realism in the most optimistic predictions around AI. It may, as AI visionaries would have us believe, really change the world.
The backlash, however, signals that we can’t ignore the real damage of today to make technological bets on the future. That’s why companies like Nintendo has said They won’t use generative AI. That’s why users of Stack Overflow, a question-and-answer website for software engineers, They rebelled en masse After the platform reached an agreement to allow OpenAI to scrape its content to train its models, users deleted their posts or edited them to fill them with nonsense. That’s why people have started Attack on driverless taxis on the streets of San Francisco, shouting that they are putting people out of work.
There is often a group of protesters outside OpenAI’s offices in San Francisco, holding signs reading “Pause AI.” This sentiment will only increase if AI is left unregulated. It can be tempting for countries to treat AI development as an arms race, to move full speed ahead no matter the cost. But Polls show that the general public He thinks it’s a bad idea. AI developers and those regulating the nascent AI industry need to listen to the growing backlash against AI.
Ed Newton-Rex is the founder of Fairly Trained, a nonprofit that certifies generative AI companies that respect creators’ rights, and co-founder of Jukedeck, which provides AI that can compose and tailor music.