Earlier this month, a popular lifestyle magazine introduced a new “fashion and lifestyle editor” to its huge social media following. “Reem”, who on first glance looked like a twentysomething woman who understood both fashion and lifestyle, was proudly announced as an “AI enhanced team member”. That is, a fake person, generated by artificial intelligence. Reem would be making product recommendations to SheerLuxe’s followers – or, to put it another way, doing what SheerLuxe would otherwise pay a person to do. The reaction was entirely predictable: outrage, followed by a hastily issued apology. One suspects Reem may not become a staple of its editorial team. This is just the latest in a long line of walkbacks of “exciting AI projects” that have been met with fury by the people they’re meant to excite. The Prince Charles Cinema in Soho, London, cancelled a screening of an AI-written film in June, because its regulars vehemently objected. Lego was pressured to take down a series of AI-generated images it published on its website. Doctor Who started experimenting with generative AI, but quickly stopped after a wave of complaints. A company swallows the AI hype, thinks jumping on board will paint it as innovative, and entirely fails to understand the growing anti-AI sentiment taking hold among many of its customers. Behind the backlash is a range of concerns about AI. Most visceral is its impact on human labour: the chief effect of using AI in many of these situations is that it deprives a person of the opportunity to do the same work. Then there is the fact that AI systems are built by exploiting the work of the very people they’re designed to replace, trained on their creative output and without paying them. The technology has a tendency to sexualise women, is used to make deepfakes, has caused tech companies to miss climate targets and is not nearly well enough understood for its many risks to be mitigated. This has understandably not led to universal adulation. As Hayao Miyazaki, the director of Studio Ghibli, the world-renowned animation studio, has said: “I am utterly disgusted … I strongly feel that [AI] is an insult to life itself.” Some members of the anti-AI movement have reclaimed the name “luddites”. I come from tech circles, where luddite is considered an insult – but this new movement is proud of the designation. As Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine, points out, the original luddites did not immediately turn to rebellion. They sought dialogue and compromise first. The new luddites, too, seek dialogue and compromise. Most realise AI is here to stay; they demand not a reversal, but an altogether more reasonable and fair approach to its adoption. And it’s easy to see how they might be more successful than their 19th-century counterparts. The apocryphal Ned Ludd did not have social media. Downtrodden workers used to be easier to ignore. The internet is the greatest tool for organising in history. Anger at AI companies is leading to some unlikely alliances. When the Recording Industry Association of America recently sued two AI music-generation companies for “copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale”, musicians and fans took to the internet to voice their support. “Amazing. AI companies have me rooting for the damn record labels,” said one composer. Old arguments are being set aside as the new threat of AI is addressed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say. Some will have you believe AI is all opportunity, all upside, the next great technological revolution that will free humanity from the dark ages we’re living through. Speakers at the Tony Blair Institute’s Future of Britain summit, held a few weeks ago, outlined why building strength in AI is “the only option for a forward-looking British government”. There is some truth in this – AI does, of course, hold promise. That promise is mostly an article of faith right now, with AI leaders promising technologies that are years away at best, unrealistic at worst. But there is reason to think there is some realism in the more optimistic predictions around AI. It may, as the AI visionaries would have you believe, truly change the world. The backlash, though, points out that we cannot ignore real harms today in order to take technological gambles on the future. This is why companies such as Nintendo have said they will not use generative AI. It is why users of Stack Overflow, a Q&A website for software engineers, rebelled en masse after the platform struck a deal to allow OpenAI to scrub its content to train its models: users deleted their posts or edited them to fill them with nonsense. It is why people have started attacking driverless taxis on the streets of San Francisco, shouting that they’re putting humans out of work. There is often a group of protesters outside the offices of OpenAI in San Francisco, holding “Pause AI” banners. This sentiment will only grow if AI is left unregulated. It may be tempting for countries to treat AI development as an arms race, to rush ahead irrespective of the cost. But polls show the general public thinks this is a bad idea. AI developers, and the people regulating the nascent AI industry, must listen to the growing AI backlash. Ed Newton-Rex is the founder of Fairly Trained, a non-profit that certifies generative AI companies that respect creators’ rights, and a co-founder of Jukedeck, which provides AI that can compose and adapt music