There's a definite contrast amongst those who are openly critical of 'AI' at the moment - and it centres on the perception of the fight. It's an interesting one to approach from a (very) resistance focused position given that, on the one hand, I've no desire for tactical differences to negate broader coalitions but on the other I do fear for the misplaced hopes of some who stand close, but not too close, to my views.

The issue is primarily that of position prior to the mass hype around AI of the past few years I think. On the one side you have those who come from institutional or (relatively) privileged positions. People whose objections to AI aren't exactly self serving but whose perceptions are framed by a looming loss of position or working model that they've somewhat insulated themselves within. You certainly see it in education, where rolling back to that prior state can be fetishised as the most ideal reaction to Artificial Intelligence's relentless push into the sector. This is where the nostalgia for students that read and sit good, old fashioned written exams with mechanisms to catch out any AI cheating stands. In the arts it was instead a big thing to anchor anti-AI arguments to pro-copyright ones, a similar position which fractured a few conversations as the ubiquitous issues copyright as a structure posed to a lot of artists clashed with a desperation for some, any tool that might push back against the kleptomania of tech companies.

Most recently I've heard it from journalists who, from my anecdotal experiences, seem to take much the same approach to everything in their industry. Ravaged by the internet, social media, corporatisation and the rampant lack of trust they increasingly face yesterday is almost always the answer to today. Their imagined halcyon days being pre-Twitter, never mind pre-X, in an age where credibility and even respectability were assumed as part of the job title.

In contrast to that you have what I'd consider my strand of opposition to AI which is, perhaps, a lot more radical. Far less inclined to nostalgia (no matter how tempting it is) you find voices who view resistance to AI not just as a matter of resisting a certain form of technosolutionism but also those structures which enabled it and created spaces where it could so easily be imposed. It's a position that suffixes pretty much every criticism with 'and we should also change everything about this sector anyway'. It's also a position that tends to be more politicised, more aspirational and, to be honest, more in touch with reality (although I would say that, wouldn't I?). In education it's where you find the more radical ideas for change, in journalism it's where the ideas of collective reporting and other novel models for doing things emerge.

I don't think this is the sort of contrast that breaks up any unified front. At the point of impact we all face almost any form of resistance is necessary but it does call for some consideration of how and where we each promote our shared cause. As we've seen with those discussions around copyright as a defence against AI theft and slop - supporting a system that didn't work for a lot of people isn't going to make for an ideal rallying point. Although neither, perhaps, are more radical imaginaries of creative compensation, distribution and ownership. Certainly with both sides it's a matter of choosing the right voice for the right audience and, ideally, being generous enough to boost other voices if they're more likely to make an impact. How we can strike that balance is something each of us should consider I think.

- Dylan