Feds Begin Targeting ‘Anti-Technology Extremists’ Which Is Going To Make Everything So Much Worse

from the into-the-fire dept

The whole conversation around AI is about to get much, much worse.

We’ve been talking a lot about AI, generative AI, LLMs, or whatever your preferred moniker has become, for some time now. And for good reason. This is a still-emerging technology that has begun to infiltrate many parts of our lives, willingly or otherwise. We’ve talked about how its use has amounted to the production of slop garbage as companies look to cut costs and staff counts, which has led some to believe that we’re a very anti-AI site. We’ve also talked about some of the interesting and useful ways everyone from children to artists are experimenting with AI to make all kinds of things, which has led some to believe we’re a bunch of pro-AI tech bros or whatever.

What we actually are, when it comes to AI, is interested in talking about where this technology can fit in a way that promotes more innovation, more content growth and production, and ultimately good outcomes for we mere human beings. And what is going to run absolutely counter to all of that is the Trump administration’s decision to sic domestic intelligence and fusion centers on supposed “anti-technology extremists.”

U.S. law enforcement agencies have taken notice of the growing backlash to AI and in response are shifting their sights to what they are calling “anti-technology extremists.”

“The chaotic atmosphere that may result from emergent AI technology in the next five years may fuel large-scale protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity, especially in large urban areas such as New York City,” reads one report from the New York Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau.

WIRED notes that the term “anti-tech violent extremism” does not appear in any public domestic extremism reports from DHS or the FBI, suggesting that this is a relatively new category.

Now, this is precisely the opposite of what I have personally advocated for, which is for a nuanced, friendly conversation about how we use AI in the present and future. That’s going to require all kinds of opinions across a large spectrum coming together to start hammering out policy. Hell, on a long enough timeline, I imagine the chances of there not being some kind of amendment to the U.S. Constitution that has something to do with AI is probably zero. That’s the level of influence this technology is going to eventually have, one way or the other.

But what immediately kills the ability to have that conversation and policy discussion is if one authoritarian, cynical federal administration simply labels one side as “extremists” and turns the kind of law enforcement surveillance on them, and publicly, that is typically used on terrorist groups. That will lead only to further stratification, turning the AI question into a largely partisan affair. And that is bad for everyone.

Dissenting on the use of AI, or the types of uses that could occur, is not extremism. It’s not illegal. It’s not even unwelcome. In fact, it’s completely necessary. Those worried about AI and its impact on humanity have completely valid reasons to be worried. We may disagree on their approach, but that disagreement is in no way disqualifying.

I’m not talking about some of the truly unhinged that are committing violence in the name of an anti-AI crusade. Those people are nuts and they are well outside of any conversation we’re having. But if you think the Trump administration is going to limit its extremist designations to only those who commit real violence, you’ve lost the plot.

Is Pope Leo an anti-technology extremist for calling on companies to make sure AI serves all of humanity, rather than just corporate or governmental interests? Of course not. He merely makes the same nuanced point many of the rest of us are making.

Pope Leo XIV has taken up the legacy of his predecessor, writing a social encyclical which addresses one of the principal challenges of the contemporary age: artificial intelligence.

Divided into five chapters, Magnifica humanitas has an underlying premise: technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity” (4), nor is it “inherently evil” (9). However, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it.

I’m not typically one to go around quoting any Popes, nor am I quoting this one merely because he’s Pope Bob from the South Side of Chicago (though I admit that helps). His take on this is the right one: technology isn’t good or evil, but it can be used for either. And talking about how we do this the right way is necessary.

The federal government is working against that idea, plainly. It now seeks to label one side of the debate, or a large portion of one side of it, as extreme in the same way terrorists are extreme. The history of this country conducting surveillance on legitimate speech is a long one. This will be used in the same way. In fact, it already is.

By portraying protesters and political activists as extremists, federal authorities gain cover to conduct surveillance and investigations. We’ve seen this countless times before, from the monitoring of socialist groups, civil rights advocates, antiwar protesters, and others considered subversive in the last century to more recent antics involving Black Lives Matter activists or government-critical groups on both the left and the right.

Illogical and sometimes illiberal anti-tech sentiment certainly abounds—and deserves criticism. But putting the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security on the case could endanger free speech and people who are merely exercising their First Amendment rights. It could be used to justify monitoring protester group chats, sending federal agents to surveil peaceful protests, and more.

A March report from the Northern Virginia Regional Intelligence Center showed “monitoring of constitutionally protected events and demonstrations related to critical views on technology,” notes Wired. “These events included multiple ‘Tesla Takedown‘ protests … and a ‘Break Up With Tech Rager’ sponsored by Eject Elbit, an activist group organizing to halt investment in the Israeli weapon’s manufacturer Elbit.”

I’ve been known to make a sport of sparring with some of our own readers who are very anti-AI. I think those conversations are important and useful. I don’t want those voices to be targeted, tamped down, or otherwise fear-mongered into silence. We need those voices every bit as much, if not more, as we need those who are pointing out where AI can find a good place in our lives.

If you, like me, believe that AI is going to have an important role in the future, if not the present, we simply cannot allow this all to get derailed by an authoritarian buffoon and monied interests teaming up to try to make the universe of Deus Ex a reality.

But it seems that that may be where we’re heading.

Filed Under: ai, anti-tech extremists, donald trump, humanity, pope, pope leo, trump admininstration