Everywhere Foist Upon Us

When I began writing this, I intended to make the case that there is no responsible use of “AI”. I was motivated by three separate encounters in a single morning of people arguing that the path forward is to adopt “AI” and find a way to do so responsibly.¹²³ In the course of writing, however, I discovered that my real disagreement with this position was that it is predicated on the belief that “AI” is here to stay, that it is inevitable.

As I began writing, I realized that the arguments I make for why there is no responsible use of “AI” can just as easily be applied to many other tools in our lives — for example, cars, computers, and phones — and as I began to address the hypothetical what-about-ism, I realized that the fundamental difference was that those arguing for “responsible ‘AI’ adoption” had accepted “AI” as inevitable and I had not. Even though you could argue that your laptop, for example, carries with it the same environmental harms and labor exploitation of which these “AI” tools are guilty, it is harder to exist in the modern world without using a computer. Except in cases where your boss forces you to use “AI” or be fired, it is entirely possible to eschew the use of these tools today.

This is not to say that I think that the environmental harms from resource extraction associated with computer chips and battery technology, nor the exploitation of labor in countries like China is in any way acceptable or excusable simply because some electronics have infiltrated our lives to the extent that they are practically indispensable. We can do better — and we should. My point is that we have not yet reached the point with “AI” that we must continue to use it as we demand better. We can instead refuse to use it until it is ethical to do so.

Fundamentally irresponsible

No matter how diligently you check the outputs, or how cautiously you roll out “AI” features, these tools are built and operated in a way that is unethical and irresponsible. Using them, therefore, can be neither ethical nor responsible. It doesn’t matter if it works.

Training and running these enormous models consumes so much electricity that we are keeping coal-fired power plants online to meet demand. We are facing a serious climate crisis; the only way to stop global warming and stave off catastrophe for many of the people on the planet is to cut carbon emissions. It strikes me as utterly irresponsible to pump more carbon into the atmosphere just so you don’t have to write your own emails or unit tests.

The models are trained by exploiting laborers in the global south and subjecting them to trauma. In what world is that ethical?

And many of these tools are explicitly part of a project to undermine workers and consolidate more power for capitalists. Even if your job is not at risk (for now) and you get to be a centaur using “AI”, the moral thing to do is stand in solidarity with your friends, family, and neighbors who aren’t so lucky.

So, no, there is no “responsible use of ‘AI’”, no matter how careful you are in your application of the tools.

Ubiquity is not inevitability

“AI” may seem inevitable because it is everywhere foist upon us. It feels inescapable. I have never knowingly used any of these large language model-based tools, and yet they are everywhere in my life. Practically every day I encounter a new story about fallout from professionals treating chatbots like Electric Monks.⁴ It infects the software on which I rely. And I have friends that have embraced these tools whole-heartedly and, man, that can make it hard to have conversations with them sometimes.

It may also feel inevitable because this is just the same tired play that capitalists have employed since the beginning of capitalism: use technology to devalue and deskill labor to lower costs and increase profit for the rich. The fact that we’ve been down this road before — this familiar feeling — makes it seem inevitable. We’ve seen this movie, we know how it ends. Except that it hasn’t ended yet.

Ubiquity and familiarity do not equate to inevitability. The industry is unsustainable both financially and computationally. We’re beginning to see these companies restrict access to their products as they increase prices.⁵ On top of which, they are having trouble buying enough computer memory, storage, and graphics cards to scale up their models. Many companies who replaced huge swaths of staff with “AI” are now quietly re-hiring those positions⁶ because it turned out “AI” couldn’t actually do the work. On top of that, evidence is emerging that “AI” is not improving productivity or margins for businesses.

That “‘AI’ is inevitable” is an industry talking point. They need us to believe it is inescapable so that they can increase their prices to cover their actual costs and become profitable before the venture capital runs out. If they can’t convince us of that, then we can just walk away because these tools aren’t actually worth what they cost. Then, when they run out of cash to light on fire, they will have nothing left.

People all over the United States have stopped the building of data centers in their cities. We don’t have to accept their tools any more than we have to accept their infrastructure. So please, stop carrying water for the Tech Oligarchy. There is no responsible use of these tools, and we have more than one course of action available to us.