There's nothing irrational about resisting AI
If you read about AI, you'll find a widespread belief: When people don't want to use AI, it's because they're afraid or just don't understand it. They're afraid of losing their jobs or of change generally. Or they don't understand the technology, so they can't see the benefits. They're stuck in the past.
Contrary to popular belief, not resisting AI is not necessarily irrational. The prevailing assumption is that people fear job loss, change, or lack understanding of the technology, framing non-use as a problem to solve. However, a recent study published in AI and Ethics suggests there are rational reasons for choosing to work manually over relying on AI.
The study, titled "The ethics of effort: reclaiming effort and resisting AI," argues that effort holds intrinsic value that cannot be substituted by increased efficiency. Three types of value offered by effort are outlined: personal development, communicating care, and moral significance of work. Personal development is essential for fulfilling one's potential and living a fulfilling life, requiring effort to master skills that matter.
Communicating care through actions, rather than just words, demonstrates deep feelings that are hard to articulate. Lastly, hard work is embedded in societal norms, with effort being morally valuable, making resistance to AI potentially a reflection of valuing these human traits over efficiency. The authors caution against trading away other valuable aspects of life, such as personal growth and expressing care, for the sake of efficiency, urging a balanced evaluation of AI adoption.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
