Earlier this month, the popular lifestyle magazine introduced its new “fashion and lifestyle editor” to its massive social media following. At first glance, “Reem” appears to be a woman in her 20s who understands both fashion and lifestyle, and was proudly announced as an “AI-enhanced team member” — that is, a fake persona generated by artificial intelligence. Reem will be recommending products to SheerLuxe’s followers; in other words, doing the kind of work that SheerLuxe would normally pay a human to do. The reaction was entirely predictable, with outrage followed by a hasty apology. Some suspect that Reem may never become a central figure on the editorial team.
This is just the latest in a long series of retractions of “inspiring AI projects” that have drawn outrage from the very people they are meant to inspire. The Prince Charles Cinema in London’s Soho stopped screening an AI-scripted film in June after patrons vehemently protested. Lego was pressured to remove a series of AI-generated images it had published on its website. Doctor Who began experimenting with generative AI but quickly halted it after a flurry of complaints. Companies are buying the AI hype, thinking that their participation will make them seem innovative, and completely unaware of the growing anti-AI sentiment among many of their customers.
Behind the backlash are a range of concerns about AI. The most deep-rooted is its impact on human labor. The main impact of using AI in many of these situations is that it takes away the opportunity to do the same work. Then there’s the fact that AI systems are built exploiting the labor of the very people they are designed to replace, and are not trained or paid for their creative output. The technology has a tendency to sexualize women, is used to create deep fakes, is causing tech companies to miss climate targets, and is not understood well enough to mitigate its many risks. Unsurprisingly, this has not led to universal praise. Hayao Miyazaki, director of world-famous animation studio Studio Ghibli, has said: “I’m completely disgusted… I strongly disagree.” [AI] It is an affront to life itself.”
Members of the activist group Safe Streets Level place cones on a self-driving taxi in San Francisco, California, in July 2023. Photo: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images
Some members of the anti-AI movement have reclaimed the name “Luddites.” I come from a technology community where Luddite is considered derogatory. But this new movement is proud of the moniker. As Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine, points out, the first Luddites didn’t rebel immediately. They called for dialogue and compromise first. The new Luddites also call for dialogue and compromise. Most recognize that AI is here to stay, and they want a more rational and fair approach to its introduction, not its reversal. And it’s easy to imagine that they might be more successful than the Luddites of the 19th century. The legendary Ned Ludd had no social media. Downtrodden workers used to be easy to ignore. The Internet is the greatest organizing tool in history.
Anger toward AI companies is forging unlikely allies. When the Recording Industry Association of America recently sued two AI music-generation companies for “copyright infringement on an unimaginable scale,” musicians and fans took to the Internet to show their support. “Wow, these AI companies make me want to root for the record companies,” said one composer. In addressing the new threat of AI, old arguments are being pushed aside. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as the saying goes.
Some would have you believe that AI is all opportunity, all good, the next great technological revolution that will free humanity from the dark ages we live in. Speakers at the Tony Blair Institute’s Future of Britain Summit a few weeks ago outlined why empowering AI is “the only option for a forward-thinking UK government.” There is some truth to this. Of course, AI has a promise. That promise is mostly a creed for now, with AI leaders promising technologies that are at best years away and at worst unrealistic. But there is reason to think that the more optimistic predictions about AI have some real potential. AI may really change the world, as AI visionaries would have you believe.
But the backlash points out that we can’t ignore the real harms of today in order to make technology bets on the future. That’s why companies like Nintendo say they won’t use generative AI. That’s why users on Stack Overflow, a Q&A site for software engineers, rebelled en masse after the platform struck a deal with OpenAI to allow it to remove content to train its models. Users deleted posts or edited them into nonsense. That’s why people have started attacking driverless taxis on the streets of San Francisco, screaming that they’re taking people’s jobs.
Outside the OpenAI offices in San Francisco, there are often groups of protesters holding banners that read “Pause AI.” If AI is left unregulated, these sentiments will only grow. Countries may be tempted to treat AI development like an arms race and forge ahead regardless of the costs, but polls show that the public thinks this is a bad idea. AI developers and those who regulate the nascent AI industry need to listen to the growing backlash against AI.
Ed Newton-Rex is the founder of Fairy Training, a nonprofit that certifies generative AI companies that respect the rights of creators, and co-founder of JukeDeck, an AI company that can compose and arrange music.
