There is a fascistic underpinning to much of the current push of "AI", c.f. the TESCREAL ideology bundle https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636
But there are definitely also non-fascistic people involved in the hype cycle. They are invariably supporting a fascistic project, yes, but they are not motivated by the fascism. Conflating these groups will just make it harder to resist the movement, to pick it apart, to turn it on itself—which I think should be our goal.
I'm seeing this tendency among *some people* on here to make this a very black and white issue. Which is a common reaction when there are significant stakes, which there are. But it is seldom constructive.
In the AI hype movement we also find:
- Scam artists trying to make a quick buck
- Tech enthusiasts who stared into the eyes of Glyph's basilisk and became deluded, thinking it is making them faster c.f. https://mastodon.social/@glyph/116220257549451634
...
- Various professionals who have extreme FOMO and don't understand how everyone else is making LLMs work well (they aren't)
...and more.
I hope you see that I am not saying these groups are somehow excused in thwir behavior from not being motivated by fascism—the bar is not quite so low.
But understanding who these people are, means we can appeal to them, convince them, build a counter-movement and a space to land for ex-converts.
That's what I'd like us all to do.
Caveat: you absolutely get to rant about shitty AI-using people in your life, and will hear no complaint from me about that. I will probably agree. And social pressure is also an important factor.
If we want to win, though, and not move into the "AI" dystopia we are slowly approximating, we need a realistic approach for that part of the work too!
Another way to phrase this, which may be stepping on some toes, is: If the undercurrent of "and I'm so good for not touching AI and shunning everything related" in your posting bout "AI", it starts to look like it's more about you feeling good about yourself and signaling social group membership, than working towards real solutions.
I am upset at and think AI boosters should be held accountable. But I also feel sorry for a lot of the less powerful deluded tag-alongs out there.
We cannot fight fascism on fascism's terms. We cannot win over fascism by picking the opposing team on the playing field designed by fascism. "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change."
And with that, we're getting closer to this again: https://mas.to/@nielsa/116233438577511918
Kropotkin, late 1800s-early 1900s anarchist, suggests that it wouldn't be necessary to forcefully evict the rich from their huge, lavish homes. Sure, maybe delegate their spare homes to better uses, but there is no reason to take everything from them. Reorganize the economic system so nobody has to take the job of a servant to survive, live, eat and take care of their family, and very quickly nobody will want those jobs. Without servants, mansions are very hard to maintain.
I love this about the serendipity of the fediverse: this paper by @olivia et al appeared on my timeline right after I finished the above thread. I wholeheartedly agree with the aspirations they set out in the conclusion: https://scholar.social/@olivia/116357078510216125
In their terms, my take could be something like: avoidance purity is incompatible with increasing AI literacy, and increasing AI literacy is the best way to drag people out of LLM delusion/FOMO.
Attached: 1 image Finally, we end on: "The future [under the sway of AI risks being] a constant rehashing of the past, wherein human creativity and communication are not only mediated by but controlled by companies. In the midst of this nonsense, we must nourish hope in shared values" https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17786243 8/
A good introduction to AI literacy is Dr. Fatima's video: https://youtu.be/y85nqc2zm7M?is=tcS3-png_K5DDm_a
I think she's a bit too willing to look for productive use cases for LLMs in modes of use I think are untenable, and I think she's a bit too one-sided on the effect of social pressure, but it's a good primer on AI literacy and e.g. the negative correlation between AI literacy and AI adoption. As a start of a series, I find it interesting.
Edit: beware: more criticism of the video: https://scholar.social/@olivia/116359187901534566
@[email protected] She cites OpenAI as a non problematic source on low water use. She also equivocates AI use with unprotected sex, contracting HIV, using dirty needles and more false analogies. Shaming is a nonsense frame and weaponised to excuse AI use.
@nielsa and this could be a good place for anybody, I guess, to start:
@olivia Thanks for calling this out! Maybe I'm biased by it being an early overview of AIL for me. As you can see above, I had issues with many parts of the video, but assumed the AIL part was good—at least interesting to me.
Will read your links and I'm sure I'll come to a better position! AIL is still a new concept to me!
@olivia What do you see as the core point of Fatima's video?
In my mind it's something like "shaming should be avoided in favor of teaching literacy", and as I said above, I disagree with her take on social pressure... am I missing something? Input very appreciated!
@olivia phew, some of those analogies were *not* stored in my brain from watching it 🫣
I completely agree with all those of your points, except that I maybe don't agree that a shaming is a fully nonsense frame, depending on whom it is applied to, and whether it is presented as an unequivocal bad, as Fatima does. So: I agree that her use of shaming as a frame is bad 😁
@olivia I think a general and growing negative sentiment towards LLM overuse can help pull people out of LLM use. E.g. seeing people on social media talk about how negatively they view colleagues using LLMs to mediate their responses, and how that feels could stop people using the tech in that way from doing so.
That would be social pressure/shaming working positively imo.
@abucci @olivia To be clear, I wrote this thread based on real guys on here:
- attacking people for writing about LLM use and how it affects the user, from personal experience, because the author had interacted with an LLM to do so
- equivocating all AI hype to fascism
I *know* most people aren't doing this, but these weren't small accounts.
this is a much better related opinion: https://tenforward.social/@packetcat/116359285877078139
@olivia @abucci Yep—strong agree!
Tried to be clear enough in my thread to make clear that that was not where I was going.
Feel a little bit like some words I used are taken out of tyheir original context and being put into a completely different one here, with bad intentions assumed on my part as a result—but oh well, if it isn't posting on the internet 🤷♂️
fwiw other than that I really appreciated your input, hope that's clear 😁
@abucci oh and fwiw I'm not suggesting bad intent, maybe just a—to me—surprising reaction. From your response to me it was unclear what you were reacting to.
Olivia's response seems to indicate it was my choice of words, your last response seems to indicate something more. Looking to understand here, not trying to point fingers or assign blame.
@abucci Yeah, I've absolultely seen that use, and I understand the connotations it brings to mind for a lot of people. It's mostly used as a catch-all dismissal of criticism, "what we have to be decent people, too??"
I wish I had better language for what I'm trying to describe...
To be clear, what I'm seeing I think springs from similar liberal/performative tendencies that treat politics as a game, as jockeying for power and social position, rather than about real peoples' lives.
> While people often misconstrue generative AI refusal as an ignorant, avoidant, fear-driven position, generative AI refusal builds on accurate research about the various ethical harms associated with generative AI, as well as disciplinary principles in writing studies. https://refusal.blog/2026/04/07/why-abstinence-only-sex-education-is-a-bad-metaphor-for-generative-ai-refusal/
@olivia @abucci This is great! I think it hits the exact sweet spot I think will be most effective:
"I’m not policing generative AI use in my classes because I don’t seek to control my students. I design my classes so that students learn a great deal about this technology (including its environmental and labor harms) and are prepared to make informed choices about technology (not just generative AI) in and beyond my classroom."
I love the emphasis on agency and the empathy in the approach.
@olivia @abucci Yes, I was going for that analogy specifically—but in a very concrete context.
It's the difficulty of seeing people saying "any criticism is purity politics" and then seeing people going actually too far on purity politics to the point of it being destructive to solutions to the problem (which to be clear requires going *very far*, much further than most people go)... but then what language can be used to describe it?
Aaand just as assuming fascist intent for any AI use or hype, assuming always a profit motive is just as counter-productive.
But this case comes from someone who seems most interested in fighting AI bros on the fediverse. Which is like, fine, we all need hobbies, but it's not actually productive towards avoiding LLM dystopia.
Niels Abildgaard
Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ
Anthony
emenel