Blind Anti-AI Rage is Fueling Dishonesty
This morning, I saw a post that got a lot of attention for listing various frustrations with “modern technology”—Artificial intelligence (machine learning), Google search, subscriptions, and more. And it’s pretty easy to see why this post struck a chord. Who hasn’t felt frustrated by the constant barrage of Big Tech shenanigans?
But frustration and dishonesty are not the same thing, and this post does something potentially dishonest (at the very least, negligently broad). It conflates machine learning, a technological development, with various business practices designed to maximize profit at the expense of people. These are not just “not the same!” They’re materially and categorically different, and this flagrant mischaracterization has consequences.
On Conflation
The user lumps machine learning with a bunch of shit people really do not like. However, a crucial distinction needs to be made: the other grievances are entirely downstream from a company’s bad practices. Machine learning, on the other hand, is a technological development lacking any mention of practice.
“AI” is a tool, much like a wrench. A wrench can be used to build something, fix something, or, in the wrong hands, use it as a weapon. Machine learning is no different; it isn’t automatically good or bad. It is not a practice itself but a means to practice. The problem isn’t inherent in it.
The rest of the list—subscriptions, throttling, ads, and Google search—are all business practices rooted in capitalism. These are not technologies but strategies designed to make money and/or maintain control. By conflating AI with these practices, the post misleads people into thinking that the technology itself is the problem when, in reality, problems arise from how it’s being used.
Subscriptions and ads are entirely a creation of capitalism, throttling is about lowering cost and generating profit, and Google search is obviously specific to one of the Big Three Big Tech Giants™ and involves proprietary tech built for specific purposes (profit and ideological maintenance).
The Google search example shows us that user can tell the difference between “search” and “Google search” by choosing to denote. However, they didn’t do that with “AI.” This is, I think, an indication that this post is attempting to be persuasive rather than make a passive observation.
Thus, this conflation probably isn’t just a harmless mistake but a deliberate rhetorical strategy. The user leverages frustrations (valid ones, as previously mentioned) to direct those feelings toward machine learning. This suggests an intent to generalize and vilify the entire field of machine learning.
This kind of rhetoric isn’t just misleading—it’s dangerous. It distracts from meaningful critiques of capitalist incentives and practices, instead fostering a blanket opposition to technological progress. This can have far-reaching consequences, from stifling innovation to creating a climate of fear and suspicion that targets even those who have nothing to do with AI (as we’ll see in later examples).
While I don’t think the user set out to make propaganda, that’s precisely what they did. And the post got a great deal of engagement; it was seen over two million times, liked more than fifty thousand, and reposted over nine thousand times.
We should distinguish between tools and their uses, especially when discussing (or even critiquing) new tools. Otherwise, we’re holding back developments that could potentially benefit everyone, not just the ruling class.
Beyond Capitalism
It’s important to understand that technology, including “AI,” would still develop in a society without capitalism. The drive to innovate and create tools to improve life is particular to human beings, not economic systems. A wrench doesn’t need capitalism to exist; it is necessitated by nuts and bolts, which are necessitated by building and producing things, etc. While capitalism as a historical stage of human society certainly has created conditions that progress technology, technology will continue to progress as long as people exist, not capitalism.
What’s particular to capitalism is how these tools are used. AI could genuinely improve lives, reduce labor, and democratize access to resources. However, the conditions of capitalism restrict the use of technology by wealth and incentivize its use to profit and maintain the power structure rather than to simply assist people. Assisting people is a byproduct, and if assisting people (or a specific group of people) ever became an obstacle to profit or ideological maintenance, something would be changed.
Everything else on the list in the post—like subscriptions and autoplay—are products of capitalist business models. These are designed not to enhance user experience but to maximize profit and control. But in a society that prioritizes human well-being rather than profit and control, these practices wouldn’t necessarily exist (at very least in their current forms, and something proprietary like “Google search” definitely couldn’t exist). Instead, AI and other technologies would theoretically be applied in ways that truly benefit people.
Further, the concerns of AI most of the people making noise like this are generally driven by their ownership or potential ownership of profit-generating property. This fear of AI isn’t rooted in a desire to protect or develop society but in an (often, but not always) unconscious desire to maintain existing power structures.
What’s particularly interesting is that many of these criticisms often come from people on the left, who allegedly aren’t fooled by capitalism and its ideologies but are demonstrating the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” syndrome. They support narratives that align with the interests of capital, often without realizing they’re doing the work of those who already hold power. By amplifying fears around AI, they’re effectively defending the very systems that keep them from advancing in the first place.
They might believe they desire to move beyond capitalism, but to be frank, we need technological development (including “AI”) to actually achieve that in a manner that is both fair and permanent.
Why Avoid Dishonestly Conflating Things
When people don’t understand the difference between technology and how it’s being used, they can end up directing their anger and activism in unproductive ways. Conflating AI with capitalist business practices doesn’t just create confusion—it can lead to real-world harm. I did note some general examples, but I’ll give a specific one here.
Earlier this year, my brother, Patrick Coffin, and his “bluegrass metal” music project, Appalachian Anarchy, were negatively impacted by anti-AI moral panic despite the falsity of the AI accusations. Appalachian Anarchy has even made it onto the Billboard chart (actually charting above Willy Nelson). Yet, the project (more specifically, Patrick) was recently targeted by an obsessive “anti-AI” hater who claimed his music was “AI-generated” simply because Patrick didn’t upload video proof of himself making or playing it (he did use AI art on the cover/thumbnail, which is using AI but not to make music, which was the accusation). This led to a controversy on Reddit, where anti-AI users and communities are always looking for targets.
Patrick uploaded footage of himself (and other musicians) playing the music and a full multi-track breakdown of the song that had been called “AI generated,” but that only provoked this guy to upload a second video “debunking” it.
However, he has since deleted his videos after being proven wrong and eventually called out on misinformation. Still, his videos inspired other YouTube channels to take aim at Appalachian Anarchy, and their videos are still up.
This hyperfixation on “how bad AI is” now targets people who aren’t even using AI for misinformation and harassment. Posts like the one that inspired me to write this stoke this hatred. These posts go out of their way to vilify machine learning genuinely and/or for the promise of engagement.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the problem lies in a system that necessitates endless profit and harsh control to maintain itself amidst its contradictions. Posts that conflate AI with the worst excesses of capitalism do more than just muddy the waters; they ultimately spread misinformation and fear that hinders our understanding of both technology and the economic forces at play.
I have worked pretty tirelessly to iron out a critique of these forces that should help materially distinguish what is actually going on.