- AI Backlash Goes Mainstream: A small but vocal movement of “AI abstainers” – from students to tech workers and artists – is choosing to avoid using artificial intelligence tools over fears about privacy, accuracy, bias, and even losing basic skills [1] [2]. This countertrend gained attention after a New York Times writer spent “48 Hours Without A.I.” and discovered that the technology is virtually inescapable in modern life [3].
- Half of Americans Wary: Public skepticism of AI is rising fast. 50% of U.S. adults are now more concerned than excited about AI’s growing role, up from 37% in 2021 [4]. Yet AI adoption keeps climbing – OpenAI’s ChatGPT boasts over 800 million users each week [5] and workplace use of AI has nearly doubled in a year [6] – highlighting a stark divide between anxieties and actual usage.
- “Opt-Out” Is Hard to Do: Avoiding AI is becoming “harder – or impossible – to opt out”, abstainers admit [7]. AI is now baked into everyday products like smartphones, search engines and office software [8]. Some companies even require or strongly encourage employees to use AI tools, putting dissenters in a bind [9] [10]. One federal analyst, pushed to use ChatGPT at work, refuses out of fear a chatbot’s error could wreck public trust [11]. Others disable AI features wherever possible – a Chicago engineer switches to DuckDuckGo search to escape AI and painstakingly turns off every AI add-on in his apps [12].
- “Not By AI”: Creative Resistance: In creative fields, rejecting AI has become a badge of honor. Graphic designers are adding “😇 Not by AI” labels to prove their art is human-made [13] [14]. An indie music venue in Oakland went so far as to ban AI-generated concert posters, calling algorithm-made art “not very punk” [15]. The policy drew “overwhelmingly positive” feedback, says co-owner Billy Joe Agan, and graphic artists nationwide volunteered to create authentic posters [16] [17]. Many creators echo the sentiment that AI content may look polished but “the humanity isn’t there” [18].
- Experts: AI Abstinence Won’t Stop the Tide: Analysts warn that personal boycotts alone can’t meaningfully slow AI’s advance [19]. “AI asceticism alone does not meet the moment,” writes tech author Rebecca Heilweil, noting that many AI features are now hidden behind the scenes [20] [21]. From customer service chatbots to smartphone autocorrect, “many integrations of artificial intelligence won’t be immediately legible” to users [22]. In other words, even if you avoid ChatGPT or Midjourney, AI may still be working in your apps and online services without you realizing it [23]. Major platforms are weaving AI deep into their ecosystems – Google’s search results, Microsoft’s Office assistants, even Apple’s next operating system – leaving consumers little choice [24].
- Big Tech All-In (and Investors Too): Despite the grassroots backlash, the tech industry is charging full-speed ahead on AI. OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, is reportedly discussing a staggering $500 billion valuation for share sales [25] after its revenues doubled to an annual run-rate of $12 billion in 2025 [26]. Cloud giants like Microsoft and Google are spending billions to embed AI in every product, confident that user demand will follow. The frenzy has turned AI suppliers into stock market superstars – chipmaker Nvidia even briefly hit $1 trillion in market value on surging AI chip demand [27]. “No one wants to be left behind in that race,” one industry analyst observed of the arms race for AI talent and capital [28].
The Backlash: Why Some Are Saying No to AI
Ellen Rugaber, a 16-year-old student from Virginia, might seem like a typical high schooler – except she refuses to use AI on principle. “It’s part of growing up to learn how to do your own work,” she says, noting that many of her classmates rely on tools like ChatGPT for homework [29]. Rugaber worries outsourcing her thinking to a machine would stunt her skills, and she’s uneasy about the biases and errors AI text generators can produce [30]. In her eyes, using AI to write an essay or solve a problem feels like cheating herself of an education.
She’s not alone. Across age groups and industries, a small but determined cohort is deliberately dialing back its use of artificial intelligence – or trying to. Some are tech professionals who ironically work in AI-heavy fields but choose to minimize chatbot use in their day-to-day tasks. Citing privacy fears and quality control, these workers avoid feeding confidential data to AI and prefer to double-check information manually. As one software engineer put it, “It feels like a con to me,” referring to the explosion of AI features popping up in his phone and apps [31]. He’s concerned that many new AI tools chiefly serve “venture capitalists’ valuation portfolios” more than the average person’s needs [32]. Plus, he simply doesn’t trust the tech not to hallucinate mistakes – a worry many share after high-profile AI gaffes.
Others frame their resistance as an effort to retain human craftsmanship. In creative circles, there’s a budding “AI-free” artisanal movement. Graphic designer Maciej Harabasz and his partner recently published a coloring book adorned with a “Not by AI” seal on the cover [33]. Harabasz, 43, hopes it makes consumers pause and appreciate that a human, not an algorithm, generated the art. “AI-generated content is pretty on the outside but empty on the inside,” he says. “The humanity isn’t there.” [34] This push for authenticity echoes in music and media: last month Thee Stork Club, an alternative music venue in Oakland, announced it will reject any concert posters made with AI. “Poster art has always been an essential part of the creative process… It’s like the album cover of the night,” the club declared, calling AI-made flyers “not very punk.” [35] The response was overwhelmingly supportive – graphic artists flooded the club with offers to create hand-made posters, according to the owners [36].
Even some small businesses are marketing themselves as proudly AI-free. Niche bookstores advertise that their recommendation newsletters are written by humans, not algorithms. Boutique customer service firms promise real people on the help line, not AI bots. And in workplaces and schools, a quiet resistance simmers: a contingent of employees and students who purposefully shun AI tools even when allowed or encouraged. Their motivations blend ethical concerns (protecting privacy, avoiding plagiarism) and self-improvement (forcing themselves to do the hard work rather than let an AI do it for them).
“They should be actually reading the regulations in full to understand the nuance,” says one federal employee, chiding younger colleagues who increasingly ask ChatGPT to summarize policy documents instead of studying them [37]. He deliberately avoids his agency’s internal AI assistant, even if it means tasks take longer without it, because “the peace of mind is worth it.” [38] In his view, relying on a bot to interpret critical information is a recipe for complacency – or disaster, if the bot gets things wrong.
Opting Out in an AI World: Easier Said Than Done
For all their conviction, these AI abstainers face an uphill battle. Artificial intelligence has quietly woven itself into so many facets of daily life that escaping it requires constant vigilance – or outright opting out of modern conveniences. The Times journalist who attempted a 48-hour AI detox quickly discovered that “it’s everywhere” [39]: from the navigation system in his car to the autocorrect in his word processor. Avoiding obvious AI tools like chatbots was one thing; but what about the machine learning algorithms sorting his email spam, recommending his next TV show, or adjusting the supermarket prices? To truly go without AI, he found, would mean retreating to an almost analog existence.
In less extreme terms, abstainers often have to take deliberate action to keep AI at bay. “I’m not seeing any convincing reason to use it. I can type my own email quicker than I can tell a chatbot what to say,” says 31-year-old Jacob Sears, who works at a non-profit and has grown weary of AI’s encroachment into every software tool [40]. Sears has tried to turn off AI features wherever he can – from disabling the predictive text in Google’s Gmail to declining Microsoft’s AI writing suggestions. He even switched his default search engine to DuckDuckGo, partly because it lets him toggle off any AI search assistants more easily than Google does [41]. But it’s a chore: “It does really feel like it’s being shoved down my throat,” Sears says of the constant prompts to use AI in apps [42]. And despite his personal stance, even he can’t avoid AI entirely at the office, since his workplace relies on mainstream tools inevitably powered by AI in the background [43].
Indeed, resisting AI can feel like swimming against a swift current. Tech companies are steadily rolling out AI-driven features by default in the tools we use every day [44]. What happens when your word processor, presentation software, or customer database automatically includes an AI “assistant” in every update? That’s the reality many workers woke up to in 2025. Some report feeling pressured by management to incorporate AI in their workflows – or at least keep up with colleagues who do. In a Gallup survey this year, 27% of U.S. white-collar workers said they frequently use AI on the job, up from just 15% in 2024 [45]. The leap suggests that in many offices, using AI has shifted from novelty to normal in a matter of months. Some bosses explicitly encourage it, believing it boosts productivity.
But does it? Not always, say skeptics. There’s mounting evidence that over-relying on AI can introduce new inefficiencies. That Chicago software engineer, Michael, recounts how GitHub Copilot (an AI coding aid) sometimes creates more work than it saves. Recently, Copilot auto-generated a code change review filled with errors, forcing Michael to spend extra time correcting the AI’s mistakes and documenting what went wrong [46]. “That actually created work for me and my co-workers,” he says, noting this isn’t an isolated case [47]. He also has to double-check junior programmers’ output when he suspects they leaned too heavily on AI to write code [48]. The phenomenon is backed up by research: a July study found that experienced developers took 19% longer to complete a coding task with an AI assistant than a control group without AI help [49]. The seasoned coders expected AI would make them twice as fast; instead, the extra time spent reviewing and fixing the AI’s “help” made them slower [50]. Such stories underscore why some professionals quietly avoid AI – they’re not Luddites so much as realists burned by early AI over-promises.
Still, admitting you don’t use AI can carry a stigma in tech culture. “It’s become more stigmatised to say you don’t use AI whatsoever in the workplace. You’re outing yourself as potentially a Luddite,” Michael notes ruefully [51]. In an industry obsessed with innovation, opting out of the latest tools – even for valid reasons – can brand one as behind the times. That social pressure is another subtle force pulling people back onto the AI bandwagon.
Nowhere is the tension more evident than in education. Schools and universities have grappled with whether to ban AI chatbots (to prevent cheating) or embrace them as learning aids. Officially, many institutions instituted “AI abstinence” policies in 2023–24, warning that using ChatGPT for assignments would be treated as plagiarism [52]. In practice, this has largely driven the behavior underground rather than stopping it. “Every student I interviewed had used AI for classwork. In fact, most were using it for every assignment,” wrote one researcher after surveying hundreds of students [53]. Students have found easy ways to evade AI detectors – for instance, by asking ChatGPT to write an essay and then paraphrasing it line by line [54]. The result is a pervasive if quiet reliance on AI in homework, despite official prohibitions. Some students compare the allure of AI to an addictive substance: “You try it once, then the next day you want more. Soon, it’s just how you do things,” one college student confessed of using AI tools [55].
This puts conscientious objectors like Rugaber in a tough spot – resisting what has become second-nature to their peers. A student in Australia, 20-year-old Elias Gondwana, says he finds it puzzling to see classmates use ChatGPT to do research or write papers [56]. “It seems counterintuitive to be going to university to learn as much as you can, and [then] skipping over the most interesting parts of learning,” Gondwana says [57]. He tries hard not to become dependent on AI shortcuts, believing that struggling through tasks manually builds character and creativity in a way machines can’t teach [58]. Gondwana worries that if he started defaulting to AI for answers, his brain wouldn’t “get everything that it could out of still being malleable.” [59] In other words, our minds, especially when young, need to grapple with problems directly to fully grow.
The irony for these abstainers is that even if they personally boycott AI, they live in a world suffused with it. They can refuse to use ChatGPT themselves, but they can’t control whether their bank uses AI to detect fraud, or whether their doctor relies on an AI transcription service, or whether the news they read was partly written by an algorithm. Several people have described abstaining from AI as feeling like “opting out of electricity” in the 21st century – doable in a limited lifestyle, perhaps, but increasingly impractical as society builds around it. As one commentator noted, going offline entirely is becoming a luxury that most people can’t afford [60].
Can “AI Abstinence” Make a Difference?
If avoiding AI is so difficult, is it even worth trying? The abstainers would argue yes – on principle, and for personal well-being. But many experts believe that individual choices alone won’t alter the trajectory of AI’s growth. They compare “AI abstinence” to other consumer-side fixes for big problems. Not eating meat might marginally reduce one’s carbon footprint; boycotting products made with sweatshop labor might raise awareness. But these actions, while admirable, rarely force industry-wide change without broader policy or cultural shifts. “There’s real value in logging off, and cutting down on individual consumption, but it won’t be enough to trigger structural change,” says documentary filmmaker Amanda Hanna-McLeer, who is studying young people who eschew digital tech [61] [62]. She praises the impulse to resist AI as a form of “cognitive self-preservation”, noting how constant reliance on GPS can erode people’s natural sense of direction [63]. Her fear is that cognitive offloading to AI – whether it’s navigation, writing, or problem-solving – could gradually “neuter our neurons,” diminishing skills we once had [64]. For those reasons, taking an occasional “AI detox” might be personally healthy. “We need to remember what it’s like to occupy, and live in, our own brains,” one tech writer quips, likening periodic AI-fasts to a digital Sabbath day [65].
From a societal standpoint, though, the deck is stacked against any large-scale retreat from AI. The business incentives driving AI adoption remain enormous. Big Tech companies are in an arms race to infuse AI into nearly every product and service – in part because they genuinely see transformative potential, and in part because they fear losing ground to competitors if they don’t. Much of this AI infusion is happening beyond the consumer’s view. “Many integrations of artificial intelligence won’t be immediately legible to everyday users,” Heilweil notes [66]. She points out that leading AI firms are now focused on enterprise and B2B markets (think AI systems sold to banks, hospitals, government agencies) more than direct consumer tools [67]. Even if a subset of consumers boycotts AI front-ends like chatbots, “there’s already a movement to make AI… laced into our digital and physical infrastructure,” she explains [68]. In other words, AI will work behind the scenes in ways the end-user might not even realize or be able to refuse.
Take the example of internet search. Google’s traditional search engine has long used AI algorithms for ranking, but now it’s morphing into an AI chatbot-style Q&A tool that directly answers queries. Whether users want it or not, Google is changing the search experience to be more AI-driven – a response to competition from Bing + OpenAI and others. Meanwhile, OpenAI itself has rolled out a web search feature in ChatGPT, blurring the line between search engine and AI assistant. Apple is reportedly building advanced AI into the core of iOS, aiming to make chatting with an AI as native as texting Siri on your iPhone [69]. All these shifts happen at the platform level, largely outside the control of individual consumers.
Another major factor is that opting out of AI can carry opportunity costs. In the workplace, if AI really does boost efficiency for certain tasks, workers who refuse to use it might fall behind colleagues who do. (This is part of why some companies strongly nudge AI adoption – they don’t want to miss out on productivity gains.) In school, a student who abides by a no-AI honor code could be at a disadvantage if everyone else quietly uses it to generate homework. These competitive dynamics ensure that as long as AI offers any edge, however slight, many people will feel pressure to use it just to keep up. “Most people will not be able to opt out of AI,” Heilweil argues, “because the decision [of whether to use it] will be made by their bosses or the companies they buy stuff from” [70]. In her view, relying on consumer choice to address AI’s downsides is “misaligned with the business model – and the threat” [71]. In plainer terms: as long as powerful companies see profit and advantage in AI, it will continue proliferating regardless of a niche anti-AI consumer movement.
That reality is evident in the market trajectory. Far from tapping the brakes, investors are pouring more fuel into AI development. Just this month, reports emerged that OpenAI (maker of ChatGPT) is allowing employees to sell shares at a jaw-dropping $500 billion valuation – up dramatically from an estimated $30 billion valuation just a year prior [72] [73]. The company’s revenues have exploded in 2025 (on pace for $20 billion annually) as businesses and developers flock to its AI products [74]. Rival startups are also commanding eye-watering sums, and tech giants like Microsoft, Google, Meta, and Amazon are investing tens of billions collectively to stake out AI dominance. The stock market has handsomely rewarded the perceived AI winners. For example, Nvidia – whose semiconductor chips power many AI systems – saw its stock surge so much that the company joined the exclusive $1 trillion market cap club in 2023 [75]. (Nvidia’s valuation at one point even exceeded the next-largest chip maker by nearly double [76].) This kind of exuberance signals that Wall Street expects AI to generate enormous future value, embedding itself into every industry from finance to healthcare. In the face of such momentum, a consumer pullback looks unlikely to put a dent in AI’s onward march.
Navigating a Future with AI
If the “AI abstinence” movement won’t stop the spread of AI, what impact will it have? At the very least, these abstainers are sparking conversations about when and how we should use AI, rather than blindly adopting it. Their stance highlights valid concerns: the energy footprint of huge AI models, the privacy risks of handing our data to algorithms, the loss of human expertise if we offload too much to machines. Those discussions are prompting some companies to offer opt-out features (for instance, letting users disable AI suggestions) and to be more transparent about where AI is used. Regulators, too, are paying attention. The European Union’s upcoming AI Act will require certain AI outputs to be labeled and give users the right to not be subject to purely algorithmic decisions in some cases. Even in the U.S., there’s talk of watermarking AI-generated media to distinguish it from human work, which aligns with what the “not by AI” advocates want.
On a cultural level, the rise of “AI-free” branding – whether it’s human-created art, music, writing or customer service – suggests there is a market for authenticity in the AI era. Much like the organic food or slow fashion movements, human-made content could become a selling point that some consumers seek out. That doesn’t mean AI content will disappear (far from it), but we may see a more conscious appreciation for things created “by hand.” The pendulum often swings this way with new technology: after an initial rush, people rediscover the value in the old ways, at least in niches. Vinyl records co-exist with music streaming; artisanal coffee thrives even as instant coffee makers proliferate. By the same token, a future where AI is ubiquitous might also elevate the status of human craftsmanship as a premium or at least a personal preference.
For most people, completely abstaining from AI is impractical – and arguably unnecessary if the technology is used wisely. The key challenge ahead is learning how to integrate AI into our lives in a balanced, transparent, and empowering way. That could mean individuals setting boundaries (e.g. no AI during family time or for certain creative tasks), educators teaching when to use vs. not use AI in learning, and companies being thoughtful about which processes truly benefit from automation versus those better left to humans.
As the Fast Company piece on this trend concluded, simply hoping consumers will reject AI “will not be enough” to address the technology’s risks [77]. Instead, broader solutions – from ethical AI design to regulation and education – will be needed to ensure AI tools develop in harmony with human values. In the meantime, those who choose to log off or take an “AI cleanse” serve as a valuable reminder: in this dizzying AI age, our human ability to think critically, create, and decide for ourselves is something we shouldn’t surrender lightly. Even if you can’t avoid AI entirely, taking a little time “unplugged” might just help you remember what it feels like to be fully, independently human – no algorithms required. [78]
Sources: The New York Times [79]; Fast Company [80] [81]; The Washington Post (via NZ Herald) [82] [83] [84]; TechStock² (ts2.tech) [85] [86]; BuildEmpathy blog [87]; Christian & Timbers (AI industry report) [88].
References
1. www.nzherald.co.nz, 2. www.nzherald.co.nz, 3. usa.shafaqna.com, 4. www.nzherald.co.nz, 5. www.nzherald.co.nz, 6. www.nzherald.co.nz, 7. www.nzherald.co.nz, 8. www.nzherald.co.nz, 9. www.nzherald.co.nz, 10. www.nzherald.co.nz, 11. www.nzherald.co.nz, 12. www.nzherald.co.nz, 13. www.nzherald.co.nz, 14. www.nzherald.co.nz, 15. www.nzherald.co.nz, 16. www.nzherald.co.nz, 17. www.nzherald.co.nz, 18. www.nzherald.co.nz, 19. www.fastcompany.com, 20. www.fastcompany.com, 21. www.fastcompany.com, 22. www.fastcompany.com, 23. www.fastcompany.com, 24. www.fastcompany.com, 25. ts2.tech, 26. ts2.tech, 27. www.christianandtimbers.com, 28. ts2.tech, 29. www.nzherald.co.nz, 30. www.nzherald.co.nz, 31. www.nzherald.co.nz, 32. www.nzherald.co.nz, 33. www.nzherald.co.nz, 34. www.nzherald.co.nz, 35. www.nzherald.co.nz, 36. www.nzherald.co.nz, 37. www.nzherald.co.nz, 38. www.nzherald.co.nz, 39. usa.shafaqna.com, 40. www.nzherald.co.nz, 41. www.nzherald.co.nz, 42. www.nzherald.co.nz, 43. www.nzherald.co.nz, 44. www.nzherald.co.nz, 45. www.nzherald.co.nz, 46. www.nzherald.co.nz, 47. www.nzherald.co.nz, 48. www.nzherald.co.nz, 49. ts2.tech, 50. ts2.tech, 51. www.nzherald.co.nz, 52. www.buildempathy.com, 53. www.buildempathy.com, 54. www.buildempathy.com, 55. www.buildempathy.com, 56. www.nzherald.co.nz, 57. www.nzherald.co.nz, 58. www.nzherald.co.nz, 59. www.nzherald.co.nz, 60. www.fastcompany.com, 61. www.fastcompany.com, 62. www.fastcompany.com, 63. www.fastcompany.com, 64. www.fastcompany.com, 65. www.fastcompany.com, 66. www.fastcompany.com, 67. www.fastcompany.com, 68. www.fastcompany.com, 69. www.fastcompany.com, 70. www.fastcompany.com, 71. www.fastcompany.com, 72. ts2.tech, 73. ts2.tech, 74. ts2.tech, 75. www.christianandtimbers.com, 76. www.christianandtimbers.com, 77. www.fastcompany.com, 78. www.fastcompany.com, 79. usa.shafaqna.com, 80. www.fastcompany.com, 81. www.fastcompany.com, 82. www.nzherald.co.nz, 83. www.nzherald.co.nz, 84. www.nzherald.co.nz, 85. ts2.tech, 86. ts2.tech, 87. www.buildempathy.com, 88. www.christianandtimbers.com