An Analysis of Artificial-Intelligence Activist and Regulatory Reform Movements from the Perspective of the Neo-Luddite Movement

This study examines the relationship between the neo-Luddite movement and the emerging artificial-intelligence activist and regulatory reform movements. For this purpose, eight activist and regulatory reform movements were found through online searches using the keywords artificial intelligence activism, no AI movements, and anti artificial intelligence activism. Thematic analysis was then employed to evaluate the extent to which the discourses and attitudes of these movements overlap with the neo-Luddite movement. The study was limited to the open letters, action plans, and blog posts of the communities on the official websites of the eight movements. The findings reveal two major themes: (1) concern about artificial intelligence and (2) accountability and process management. Under the theme of concern, the sub-themes of information security, technological unemployment, and life safety were identified, and a multi-layered interpretation was offered to address the social, legal, ethical, and political dimensions of these sub-themes from a security and stability perspective. Under the theme of accountability and process management, movements' views on potential problem-causing and solution-creating actors were compiled and the relevantfindings were presented. It was observed that seven movements interpret private companies as problem-causing actors, and one movement interprets both private companies and the state authority in this light. Seven movements adopt the view that the state is the actor with the greatest potential to solve these problems, and one movement adopts the view that private companies are. This suggests that these movements rely on the state's power of enforcement in this matter rather than on private companies' capacity to find solutions on their own. In the solution plans of the movements, it was found that four movements are radical and four are moderate. The study concludes that the discourses of activist and regulatory reform movements towards artificial intelligence are compatible with neo-Luddite principles. The study is important in terms of contributing to the literature on artificial intelligence, activism, and artificial-intelligence ethics.