You Don’t Hate AI. You Hate Living in a World You Can’t Keep Morally Sterile.
I can’t use or trust ANY technology that doesn’t have an explicit zero‑tolerance policy towards AI. Even the Linux kernel feels untouchable…
I’m stuck in a loop of “AI policy spiraling”: checking everything I use to see if it’s anti‑ai enough.
Ignoring it doesn’t work. Good news doesn’t work. I just have to wait and hope they undo all the AI contributions.
On the surface, it reads like:
“AI is ruining my mental health.”
Look a little closer and the story flips. This isn’t about AI. This is about someone installing a moral purity filter on their entire reality and then discovering they can’t breathe through it.
Not fear of AI — fear of contamination
This person isn’t saying: “I think these systems are risky, I want regulation, I’m cautious.”
They’re saying: “Anything that has touched AI is morally dirty unless it explicitly swears it isn’t.”
That’s not a critique. That’s a taboo.
AI becomes a kind of metaphysical grease: once it’s in the machine, the whole thing is unclean. No nuance, no context, no proportionality. You’re either “explicitly anti‑AI” or morally compromised.
If you define the world that way, spiraling isn’t a bug. It’s the only possible runtime.
The invisible contract with reality
Translate their position into plain language:
I demand zero‑tolerance for AI from every tool I touch.
AI is being woven into more and more tools.
I have no power to stop that.
I refuse to relax my rule.
Therefore, I experience ordinary technological change as personal violation.
From the inside, it feels like persecution:
“I’m suffering because everyone else is asleep and unethical.”
From the outside, it looks like this:
“I wrote myself a contract where the world has to either conform to my private notion of moral sterility or feel unbearable — and now the world, shockingly, is not complying.”
The pain is real. The premise that produces it — self‑chosen.
There’s a particular kink here: the suffering is not just tolerated, it’s morally flattering.
“I can’t use anything, I’m terrified, my life is shrinking” — but also:
“I’m the one who cares enough to be this wrecked. Everyone else just shrugs and collaborates.”
If you loosen the stance, if you allow any gray zone, you don’t just change a preference. You crack the identity: the one righteous person in a compromised world. So the ideology can’t soften. Only the panic can escalate.
That’s how you end up building a psychological stance where every new AI feature, every product update, every quiet infrastructure change is experienced as the world spitting in your face — and you call that “having principles”.
Ethics or self‑harm in drag?
You’re allowed to dislike AI. You’re allowed to refuse certain tools, push for regulation, demand better guarantees. That’s one conversation.
This is a person choosing a moral posture that makes it structurally impossible to live in the environment they actually inhabit — and then attributing the resulting agony to the environment, not the posture.
That’s the pose I care about:
the moment where “I want to be ethical” quietly turns into “I will only feel clean in a world that no longer exists, and I’d rather break myself than admit that’s what I’m asking for.”
