AI Vegans: Why People Are Abstaining from Artificial Intelligence
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in daily life, a growing wave of concern is prompting a critical examination of its long-term impacts. This scrutiny extends beyond immediate utility to encompass broader societal, environmental, and cognitive implications.
The pervasive nature of AI raises questions akin to past technological shifts. Just as the widespread adoption of keyboards has altered handwriting proficiency and potentially cognitive learning patterns, the deeper integration of AI prompts new inquiries about its effects on human cognition. While proponents like Mark Zuckerberg suggest AI-powered smart glasses could offer a “significant cognitive advantage,” counter-arguments exist, with studies indicating that an overreliance on generative AI tools like ChatGPT might impede critical thinking abilities.
Beyond cognitive shifts, the rapid expansion of AI carries substantial “collateral damage.” A primary concern is its immense environmental footprint. Training and operating sophisticated AI models demand vast amounts of energy, often from carbon-intensive sources, leading to significant greenhouse gas emissions. This energy consumption also translates to considerable water usage, particularly for cooling the massive data centers required. For instance, generating a simple image via an AI model can consume energy equivalent to a bottle of water and ten times more energy than a standard Google search. Ethically, the development of AI is often predicated on the exploitation of human labor, particularly that of underpaid creatives whose work is used to train these systems without adequate compensation or consent.
In response to these burgeoning concerns, a new movement is emerging: “AI veganism.” This term describes individuals who consciously choose to abstain from using artificial intelligence, citing environmental, ethical, and personal wellness reasons. While the phrase itself may seem novel, it encapsulates a deliberate decision to disengage from technology perceived as harmful, drawing parallels to traditional veganism’s motivations for ethical consumption.
Whether “AI veganism” will achieve widespread adoption remains to be seen. However, akin to its dietary counterpart, practitioners are likely to advocate for their choices. While a mass digital abstinence might be unrealistic, the movement underscores a valuable principle: the need for greater awareness regarding our AI consumption and its planetary impact. Encouraging users to consider the “digital calorie count”—the resource cost—of each AI interaction could foster a more responsible approach to technology use.
Ultimately, the rise of “AI vegans” serves as a potent reminder that technological advancement, while offering convenience, is not without significant costs. It prompts a necessary societal conversation about the responsible development and consumption of AI, urging a shift towards more sustainable and ethical practices.