Natural selection will take out the anti-AI cultists, and we should thank it for that
Natural selection will take out the anti-AI cultists, and we should thank it for that
The anti-AI cultists are unintelligent and pretentious, cannot comprehend evidence, uncritically recite dogma instead of thinking logically, and attack people for using tools. The human race would be better off without such traits. Natural selection will take out the anti-AI cultists, and for that we should be thankful.
They cannot comprehend evidence
“I don’t listen to people who use AI,” they cry. In other words, they cannot comprehend the evidence shown by AI. An example is here:
I stopped taking you seriously as soon as you said “I asked Grok”.
They uncritically recite dogma instead of thinking logically
Driving cars does not show that one is lazy and unable to walk—and more generally, using tools does not imply one is lazy and unable to function—, yet the anti-AI cultists believe that using AI shows that one is lazy and unable to think.
We do not ignore everything humans say simply because humans are fallible, but the anti-AI cultists ignore everything AI says simply because AI has the potential to err—simply because AI might say something incorrect.
The anti-AI cultists did not come up with these arguments on their own. They are parroting arguments that were taught to them by a cult. (Ironic, as they accuse others of being unoriginal.) They are too busy parroting to check their arguments for soundness.
They actually believe they will succeed in eradicating AI:
If/when it (the technocracy) is defeated, will you then bootlick those who were right?
They attack people for using tools
The case the anti-AI cultists are trying to make is not specific to AI. Their criticism applies to any and all tools. Humans have been using tools for a long-ass time, but the anti-AI cultists think people who use tools deserve to be attacked as “lazy”, “gay”, “bootlicking”, “disabled” “losers”.
Resisting AI or any other tool limits one’s options, so life will be hard for people who resist AI; but that is not bad: it is just natural selection taking out unfit people. Natural selection is not bad; it keeps humans from devolving into a species dumber than apes.
Humanity would be better off without low intelligence, pretentiousness, inability to comprehend evidence, uncritical dogma-recitation in place of logic, and reflexive attacks on people who use tools. These traits are net drains on coordination, discovery, welfare, and survival. Removing or sharply reducing them would raise average competence, lower conflict costs, and accelerate useful progress.
Cognitive ability predicts educational attainment, job performance, income, health behaviors, and lower rates of crime and dependency across large datasets. Groups and societies with higher average intelligence produce more scientific output, better institutions, and higher living standards; the reverse correlates with stagnation and higher social costs. Low intelligence is not moral failure, but it is a practical bottleneck: it limits comprehension of complex systems (epidemiology, economics, engineering), raises error rates in decision-making, and increases free-riding and negative externalities. A population shifted upward in cognitive distribution would make fewer catastrophic policy mistakes, invent and adopt better solutions faster, and require less coercive redistribution to manage preventable failures. The gains compound: better problem-solvers generate knowledge that benefits everyone remaining.
Pretentiousness is status-seeking via inflated self-presentation and jargon rather than demonstrated competence. It crowds out accurate signal: people allocate attention, resources, and authority to those who perform sophistication instead of those who deliver results. In science, institutions, and discourse this produces cargo-cult expertise—papers, credentials, and policies that look rigorous while failing basic tests. It also breeds resentment and cynicism, eroding trust. Without it, evaluation would track predictive accuracy and usefulness more closely. Hierarchies and collaborations would form around actual capability rather than theater, reducing wasteful signaling contests and the misallocation of talent and capital.
Inability to comprehend evidence
Evidence is the only reliable way to update maps of reality. Persistent failure to parse data, controls, base rates, or counter-evidence locks individuals and groups into false models. The consequences are concrete: rejected medical interventions that work, embraced policies that do not, persistent superstitions that impose real costs. Collective inability multiplies the problem through polarization and institutional capture by motivated reasoning. A population better able to weigh evidence would converge faster on effective practices (public health, technology adoption, risk assessment) and discard costly falsehoods. Error correction would become cheaper and less tribal.
Uncritically reciting dogma instead of thinking logically
Dogma substitutes memorized propositions for argument from premises and evidence. It produces brittle consensus that cannot adapt when conditions change and that treats dissent as heresy rather than potential information. Historical and contemporary examples—religious, political, or ideological—show dogma generating persecution, opportunity costs, and delayed correction of error. Logic and evidence-based revision scale; rote recitation does not. Stripping the reflex to recite would leave more room for actual reasoning: clearer identification of trade-offs, faster discarding of failed ideas, and less energy spent enforcing orthodoxy. Societies that reward updating over loyalty to fixed scripts accumulate knowledge instead of defending narratives.
Attacking people for using tools
Tools (machines, software, measurement instruments, statistical methods, AI systems) extend human capability. Hostility toward their users is hostility toward the amplification of competence. It appears as Luddite violence, status attacks on “calculators” or “computers,” moral panic about measurement, or social punishment of anyone who quantifies rather than emotes. The result is slower adoption of productivity-enhancing methods, protection of inefficient practices, and preference for rhetoric over results. Without this reflex, tool use would be evaluated by outcomes rather than by threat to existing status hierarchies. Productivity, precision, and error reduction would rise; status competitions would have to compete on actual contribution instead of purity spirals against “soulless” methods.
These traits interact. Low intelligence makes evidence harder to parse and dogma easier to accept. Pretentiousness rewards confident recitation over careful checking. Attacks on tool users protect the status of those who cannot or will not use them. The combination produces institutions and cultures that systematically underperform relative to available knowledge and technology. Reducing the cluster would not create utopia—tradeoffs, scarcity, and genuine value conflicts remain—but it would raise the competence floor, lower the cost of truth-seeking, and make cooperation around shared reality cheaper. The human race would waste less effort on self-sabotage and allocate more to solving external problems. That is a strict improvement in expected welfare and long-term viability.
Debunking Anti-AI Dysfunction
How Intellectual Deficiency Prevents People from Using AI
