When a 20-year-old Texas man was arrested earlier this year for allegedly trying to set fire to OpenAI’s headquarters and Sam Altman’s home, authorities found an anti-AI manifesto next to his lighter and kerosene jug. It was one of a series of attacks that raised alarm among researchers, the tech industry, and law enforcement about the rise of anti-tech extremism.
In April, an Italian “nature pill” Instagram influencer was arrested in Rome and charged with planning a series of anti-technology attacks inspired by Ted “The Unabomber” Kaczynski. The two self-proclaimed “ecofascists” who carried out a deadly anti-Muslim attack on a San Diego mosque last month also cited “AI slop” and J.D. Vance’s association with Palantir as motives for the violence in their manifestos. Earlier this year, an Indianapolis City Council member woke up to the sound of gunfire in his home and found a note that read “No Data Centers.”
The growing public backlash against the technology industry’s rapid adoption of artificial intelligence is taking many forms, mostly non-violent, such as local community organizing against data centers and political candidates pledging increased oversight. But on the fringes, researchers say, dissatisfaction with the AI industry and its leaders is energizing old violent extremist movements and fostering new ones.
“AI is becoming a driving force in political violence, and this is a very new phenomenon,” said Jordyn Abrams, a researcher at George Washington University’s Extremism Program.
While much of the early public debate about generative AI and extremism focused on how malicious actors like terrorist groups could exploit products like ChatGPT for propaganda purposes or attack planning, more recently there has been a focus on how the AI industry as a whole could radicalize people. Researchers say it may not be a conversation with a chatbot that drives someone to extreme violence, but rather the societal disruption, existential threat, and lack of accountability associated with the AI boom.
Just as AI has permeated many aspects of modern life, this technology has also permeated the way extremists think about the world. AI has become a fixture in every spectrum of extremism, whether it’s violent anti-government groups opposed to mass surveillance, ecofascists frustrated over environmental issues, neo-Nazi accelerationists bent on destroying critical technology infrastructure, or the man who allegedly targeted Altman’s home because he feared super-powered artificial intelligence would wipe out humanity.
“This really transcends the left-right dichotomy,” said Yannick Veilleux-Lepage, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. “We’re seeing different groups, different ideologies being framed through an anti-AI lens.”
We don’t have time to build resilience for people.”
Modern anti-technology movements have a long history. Periods of technological innovation have historically been accompanied by pushback from those most affected. Researchers often point to the Luddite revolt in the early 19th century, when British textile workers destroyed automatic knitting machines in a bid for more labor rights. The next 200 years saw waves of violent labor unrest and political violence accompanied by technological market disruption, uneven accumulation of wealth, and worker disenfranchisement.
In the 1990s, there was a cultural backlash against the rise of personal computers and fears of how they would disrupt society. Common complaints included concerns about the replacement of human workers, environmental damage, and the disruption of healthy social structures.
“Haven’t you heard? It wants your job. It sells you dirty words. It corrupts your children. It’s cruel, sterile, inhuman. Suddenly it’s okay to hate your computer,” read a 1995 New York Magazine cover article about the “New Luddites.”
The same year that New York Magazine published its cover story, the Washington Post and New York Times published the Unabomber’s anti-technology manifesto. It’s a 35,000-word screed against industrial society that has spread online in the years since, becoming the closest thing to a foundational text for anti-technology extremism.
What separates anti-AI extremism from previous waves of technology backlash, researchers say, is part of the speed and scale with which AI brings economic, social and political change.
“Not only are these changes happening throughout society, and they’re truly disruptive, but they’re happening very quickly,” Veilleux-Lepage said. “There is no time for people to build resilience or protect themselves from these changes.”
The AI industry’s long-standing claim that this technology will revolutionize, if not end the world, also feeds into the increasingly radical narrative that AI poses an existential threat and must be stopped at all costs. When Mr. Veilleux-Lepage speaks to policymakers about anti-technology extremism, one of his slides simply features a series of quotes from CEOs.
“We don’t really need theorists and ideologues calling people to violence against AI to radicalize people, because tech CEOs have pretty good cases,” Veilleux-Lepage said.
“I expect something really bad to happen.”
Altman often views the changes brought about by AI as potentially difficult but ultimately positive, and above all, as inevitable.
“I expect really bad things to happen with this technology, just like what happened with previous technologies,” Altman said on venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz’s podcast last year.
Although tech company CEOs are publicly optimistic about societal resilience and the changes AI will bring, privately they are also clearly concerned about the threat of political violence. Spending on executive protection has ballooned over the past five years in the wake of incidents such as the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and tech leaders such as Elon Musk are now spending millions of dollars to protect themselves. SpaceX disclosed in its IPO filing earlier this year that it paid $4 million for Musk’s private security company last year, double what it paid just two years ago.
There have been signs of a shift in rhetoric over the past year as the AI industry grapples with widespread public mistrust. Altman argued last month that AI would not cause the “jobs apocalypse” he had previously discussed, even if companies like Meta laid off tens of thousands of employees. Meanwhile, OpenAI and Anthropic have announced a fund and think tank this year aimed at helping private institutions adapt to AI, and OpenAI’s nonprofit organization has committed $250 million in grants to programs that help workers navigate the AI upheaval.
To monitor threats and abuses of their technology, major AI companies employ national security, intelligence, and weapons experts, including some with backgrounds in extremism and counterterrorism research. OpenAI’s head of intelligence previously served as one of the leading academic experts on the Islamic State and wrote a book about the group’s belief that it is bringing about the apocalypse. OpenAI and Anthropic did not respond to requests for interviews with intelligence or security experts.
There are no non-violent means
The sense that the technology is being forced on society, with legitimate avenues to address public opposition to AI closed, creates what researchers say is an accountability gap that could encourage more terrorism and political violence.
Last year, Donald Trump worked with technology leaders to issue an executive order seeking to block state-level legislation that would curb AI development, saying there was nothing to slow America’s momentum in the global AI race. Tech billionaires are also pouring millions into lobbying and political spending to prevent regulation of AI.
Mauro Lubrano, a lecturer at the University of Bath and author of Stop the Machines: The Rise of Anti-Techrology Extremism, said: “If the authorities are too busy and don’t care enough to regulate or take action, then the people affected will take action.”
Federal law enforcement documents obtained by Wired and The Intercept show that U.S. authorities have vowed to aggressively prosecute violent attacks while increasing surveillance of the anti-tech movement. Following the attempted arson attack at Altman’s home earlier this year, the agency made clear that “the FBI will not tolerate threats against our nation’s innovation leaders.”
But researchers warn that authorities risk conflating the nationwide protests, calling tighter regulation of AI with the views of more fringe anti-tech extremists, which they warn is inaccurate and counterproductive. Lubrano said programs aimed at mass surveillance and attempts to silence nonviolent anti-AI movements will inevitably backfire, pushing people further into violence if they feel their legitimate grievances are not being addressed.
“We have an opportunity to proactively address this issue while avoiding the mistakes we have made in the past when responding to other forms of extremism,” Lubrano said. “Something tells me we’re not off to a great start.”
