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.

The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence | First Monday

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

Niels Abildgaard (@[email protected])

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.

mas.to

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.

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ (@[email protected])

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/

Scholar Social
@[email protected] @[email protected]
avoidance purity is incompatible with increasing AI literacy
"Avoidance purity" is both a strawman and a dogwhistle. Nobody serious is doing either of these things, and a lot of bad actors use this phrase to cudgel people into submission or sow doubt. A strange take, frankly.

That said, the conclusion is false. I practice an extreme form of avoidance purity when it comes to experimenting with whether murder would enhance my life. Nevertheless, I am "murder literate". I contend the overwhelming majority of folks can say the same.

(I recognize that I too am whacking a strawman, but this is for effect; the point gestured at stands regardless).

@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.

@nielsa @abucci

In all honesty, the "debate" on the 2nd is pointless. My suggestion would be to avoid it. It's a trap for wasting time.

packetcat (@[email protected])

Content warning: the discourse du jour

Ten Forward
@olivia @abucci Yeah - I agree with that thread. To be clear my thread ia completely unrelated to the discourse around today's main character, and was posted before it blew up 😁
@olivia @abucci I mean, yeah... I'm not really engaging, just trying to signpost that it is somewhere between a waste of time and mildly destructive to efforts towards pulling people out of AI delusion.
@nielsa @abucci what is destructive IMHO is accusing people within the broad anti-AI scholars and allies of shaming when no such thing happened. You did not do this! But it's happening.

@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 😁

@nielsa @abucci oh, just to be clear — and sorry if this was needed (but I think it is needed) — I think we agree and indeed no need to worry about words out of context!

@olivia I got that general sense, except for @abucci 's post above and your agreement with it 😁 maybe I read it wrong?

Thanks for clarifying! Not needed, but nice 😁

@nielsa what I can say is: @abucci has witnessed me bullied for so-called "AI shaming" — does that help?

@olivia @abucci I am all for grace 😁

Hope it didn't come across as if I was justifying that type of accusation of shaming! Sorry if it did!

@[email protected] If you're suggesting I've come at you with bad intent, I'd offer that this is a great way to convince me that your own words are being offered in bad faith. I think my read of your posts was a reasonable one even if it is not what you intended to express. I know it's frustrating to be misread but that's one reason we interact, isn't it? To clarify?

And absolutely I've seen a bunch of people say rude stuff to @[email protected] on here. Ugly stuff, undeserved.
@abucci @olivia Do you think I clarified reasonably in the replies you were tagged in? Or do they read in the same way? Honestly looking for input here, so I can correct bad communication on my part.

@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.

@[email protected] Maybe there's a cultural thing here. I am in and from the US, where "purity test"---like the Wikipedia article Olivia linked---is very frequently used in bad faith to shut down discussion and conversation, especially by the powerful when anyone challenges their position from a more principled position. For instance, the Democratic party here---a corporate, centrist or center-right party---frequently accuses anyone with left-leaning politics as unreasonably demanding ideological purity, thereby distracting from the core policy debate.

I've seen similar language around AI, which is also a project of the powerful, used to stifle reasonable debate about this technology. So, I'm quite sensitive to this rhetoric.

@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.

@[email protected] @[email protected] Now that I've read all the interactions after your thread I think I understand you, yes. I don't think you're speaking in bad faith, slinging dogwhistles, or anything like that. I'm sorry if I wasn't clearer about that earlier.
@abucci @olivia Thanks for taking the time to clear it up! Truly appreciated!
@[email protected] @[email protected] Likewise---I tend to be blunt I guess, but I am legitimately interested in pushing ideas forward, especially with regards to this AI situation we've all been thrust into. Thank you for sticking through it.

@abucci @olivia ❤️ thanks!

I think we'll get along then 😁

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ (@[email protected])

> 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/

Scholar Social

@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.

@nielsa @abucci also dismantles the awful flawed metaphor
@olivia @abucci Yes! Many good things in there
@[email protected] @[email protected] Thanks for sharing! This is thought-provoking. Here's one reaction I had, for what it's worth.

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania, and though the sex ed then and there was a tiny bit better than what this author describes experiencing in Arkansas, it was not by much. I wonder sometimes whether non-Americans grasp how backwards and regressive US culture can be. Anyway, an attempt to adapt the rhetoric of abstinence-only sex "education" to shame AI critics is complicated for this reason. E.g., arguments about the need to abstain from use of AI might actually work on some people. It might fall flat or even raise the ire of others who had bad experiences. Putting on my evil tech marketer hat, I'd avoid this frame because of the complexity and unpredictability about how it might land (I don't actually have this hat). There are probably some effective wedges to drive here, and I think the linked article hits on one.
@abucci @olivia Yeah, my only frame of reference for abstinence only sex ed is hearing Americans talk about how bad it is 😁🤷‍♂️