内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/the-ai-slop-backlash-is-actually-having-an-impact/

内容总结：

美国民众对生成式AI的反感情绪日益高涨，科技巨头被迫“踩刹车”

近年来，生成式人工智能（AI）技术迅速渗透进美国人日常生活的方方面面，但这种“无孔不入”的渗透非但没有赢得用户欢心，反而引发了广泛的反感和抵制。从社交媒体到搜索引擎，从广告营销到数据中心建设，一场关于AI“同意权”的民间反抗浪潮正在席卷全美。

“AI革命已到来，但人人都讨厌它”

纽约大学数据新闻学教授梅雷迪斯·布鲁萨德一针见血地指出：“AI革命已经发生，而每个人都讨厌它。” 近期盖洛普民调显示，美国民众对生成式AI的熟悉度越高，对其负面看法也越强烈。尤其是在18至29岁的年轻人群体中，近半数认为生成式AI弊大于利。

这种负面情绪的核心根源在于“未经同意的强加”。许多美国人感到，自己从未主动选择或同意让AI介入生活：社交媒体上的照片被擅自用于训练AI模型，搜索结果的顶端被强制植入AI生成的答案，甚至连手机应用都悄悄增加了制作个人深度伪造视频的功能。用户仿佛一夜醒来，发现所有常用软件都被塞满了AI功能，自己却毫无发言权。

民众抵制初见成效，企业被迫“回滚”

尽管科技巨头仍在大力推广AI工具，但持续发酵的公众抗议似乎正在迫使一些公司调整方向。例如，LinkedIn最近增加了“疑似AI垃圾内容”的举报按钮；Snapchat宣布完全由AI生成的视频不再推送到发现页；Substack也推出了AI检测工具来规范创作者。

更直接的胜利来自用户的集体施压。Meta公司因在Instagram上推出允许他人制作用户深度伪造视频的功能，遭到大量用户批评和数百万次观看的病毒式吐槽，仅三天便被迫下架该功能。谷歌也在推出利用生成式AI修改谷歌地球卫星图像的功能后，因媒体和用户反对，几乎立即将其撤下。

图夫茨大学人类学副教授尼克·西弗分析称，科技公司往往“先推出看效果，反正也没人真正知道这功能该干什么”，但事实证明，公众的舆论压力确实能起到“纠偏”作用。

数据中心的“邻避运动”兴起

除了数字世界的抵制，越来越多美国人开始走上街头，抗议为AI提供算力的数据中心建设。这些设施因其巨大的能源消耗和对环境的潜在破坏，成为众矢之的。《AI骗局》一书的合著者艾米丽·本德表示：“数据中心之所以成为焦点，是因为它们是环境和经济损失的集中体现。” 不同政治立场的民众罕见地团结起来，共同反对在自家后院建设数据中心。

职场强制使用引发不满

在科技产业腹地旧金山，虽然许多软件开发者已开始使用生成式AI工具，但相当一部分是出于公司“自上而下的强制要求”。一名Block公司员工在裁员期间抱怨：“强制使用大语言模型简直疯狂。如果这个工具真的好用，我们自然会去用。” 这种不尊重员工选择的做法，进一步加剧了人们对AI技术的抵触心理。

专家呼吁：集体行动是有效武器

面对资金雄厚的科技巨头，个体用户的力量看似渺小，但近期多个AI功能的紧急下线证明，集体行动依然有效。布鲁萨德鼓励公众：“一定要积极组织起来，无论是用传统方式还是数字方式。提醒大家，舆论压力是管用的。”

这场由“未经同意”引发的AI反弹，正逐渐从网络抱怨走向实际行动，并开始对科技公司的产品决策产生影响。未来，AI的发展或许不再只是“巨头说了算”，而将越来越取决于公众的声音。

中文翻译：

我最近翻看Instagram的设置，试图关闭Meta那个已经失效的功能——它曾允许任何人未经我同意就制造我的AI深度伪造视频。点击那个卡夫卡式的退出流程时，愤怒在我心中翻涌。

我没有把手机扔出房间，而是冲伴侣嘟囔着说，我们应该离开旧金山，去当与世隔绝的牧羊人。过一种原始的生活。那一刻，任何事听起来都比这持续不断的、由生成式AI引发的噩梦要好。

许多美国人对于生成式AI在日常生活中日益普及都有类似的反应。“AI革命已经发生了，但所有人都讨厌它，”纽约大学数据新闻学教授、《人工愚蠢：计算机如何误解世界》一书的作者梅雷迪斯·布鲁萨德说。在最近一项盖洛普民调中，美国人对生成式AI的熟悉度上升的同时，对这一技术的态度也趋于负面。18至29岁的年轻人尤其如此，其中近一半人认为生成式AI弊大于利。

虽然这种对AI的抵制情绪在过去几年一直在酝酿，但越来越多的公司似乎正在直接回应这些担忧。LinkedIn增加了一个“看起来像AI垃圾”的按钮，用于举报平台上的AI生成内容，尽管该平台仍然提供大量生成式AI工具。Snapchat宣布，完全由AI生成的视频将不再有资格进入其发现流。Substack最近添加了一款AI检测工具来监管作者。

抵制的“原因”核心其实很简单。许多美国人觉得自己从未同意过这一切。我不知道我的线上互动有一天会被大规模抓取用于AI模型训练。我并没有要求Instagram在我的账户上启用深度伪造功能。我不希望Google把AI生成的答案推送到搜索结果顶部。我某天醒来，生成式AI功能就被塞满了我依赖的所有软件的每个角落，未经我同意。

无论是AI模型抓取你的数据，还是嘈杂的数据中心突然出现在你家后院，AI革命似乎都是一件发生在我们身上的事，却让我们感觉自己不是积极的参与者。

“同意非常重要，”布鲁萨德告诉《连线》杂志。“我们可以把这一点联系到女性、酷儿群体、有色人种和少数群体在网上如何被剥削和虐待的方式。科技公司从来没有真正对同意问题敏感过。”

公众的抵制似乎正在发挥作用，有时确实能让不受欢迎的AI功能被关闭。“他们就是推出来看看什么能留下来，因为没有人真正知道这东西是干嘛的，”塔夫茨大学专注于技术与社会的人类学副教授尼克·西弗说。Google最近几乎在推出后立即就回滚了让用户使用生成式AI修改Google Earth卫星图像的功能，此前404 Media对此进行了报道。此外，Meta在公众强烈抗议以及批评该功能的数百万浏览量视频疯传三天后，关闭了之前为Instagram用户提供的深度伪造工具。

营销材料中对生成式AI的抵制也越来越多。许多网民对麦当劳和可口可乐等大品牌将生成式AI视觉效果融入广告片的做法反应消极。就连本地小店也因为用AI生成的海报推广活动而遭到抵制。

除了线上抗议，越来越多的人开始抗议为这些AI工具提供算力的数据中心建设。“围绕数据中心正在形成大量的反对力量，”《AI骗局》的合著者艾米丽·本德说。“数据中心之所以重要，是因为它们是环境和经济破坏的焦点。”最近，不同政治派别的美国人都在这些数据中心抗议活动中团结起来。

尽管旧金山的科技从业者——尤其是软件开发人员——已将生成式AI工具视为日常工作的核心，但其中许多使用都是强制性的。“自上而下强制使用大语言模型的做法太疯狂了，”一位Block员工在今年早些时候杰克·多尔西这家金融科技公司裁员时告诉我。“如果这个工具真的好用，我们自然会去用它。”我不想在工作中被强迫使用特定工具，尤其是一个在道德上有问题且被证明漏洞百出的工具。

在对抗资金充裕的科技巨头的随心所欲时，人们很容易感到无能为力，但最近一些AI功能被回滚的事实提醒着我们集体行动的力量。“我绝对鼓励人们用传统方式和数字方式组织起来，”布鲁萨德说。“提醒人们，公众压力是有效的。”

评论

返回顶部

英文来源：

I was recently digging through my Instagram settings, trying to disable Meta’s now-defunct feature that allowed anyone to create AI deepfakes of me without consent. Anger bubbled up inside as I tapped through the Kafkaesque opt-out process.
Rather than throwing my phone across the room, I blurted to my partner that we should leave San Francisco behind and be off-grid sheep farmers. Something analog. In that moment, anything sounded better than this ongoing, generative-AI-induced hell.
Many Americans are having similar reactions to the growing prevalence of generative AI in daily life. “The AI revolution has happened, and everybody hates it,” says Meredith Broussard, a data journalism professor at New York University and author of Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. In a recent Gallup poll, Americans’ increased familiarity with generative AI coincides with negative attitudes about the technology. This is especially true for young people between 18 and 29, where almost half see generative AI as doing more harm than good.
While this AI backlash has been brewing for the last few years, more companies appear to be directly addressing these concerns. LinkedIn added a “seems like AI slop” button for reporting AI-generated content on the platform, despite still hosting plenty of generative AI tools. Snapchat announced that fully AI-generated videos would no longer be eligible for its discovery feed. Substack recently added an AI detection tool to police writers.
The backlash’s “why” is simple at its core. Many Americans feel like they never consented to any of this. I had no idea that my online interactions would one day be scraped en masse for AI model training. I didn’t ask for Instagram to enable deepfakes on my account. I didn’t want Google to push AI-generated answers at the top of search results. I woke up one day, and generative AI features were stuffed into every corner of all the software I rely on without my consent.
Whether it's AI models scraping your data or noisy data centers popping up in your backyard, the AI revolution seems to be an event happening to us without making us feel like active participants.
“Consent is really important,” Broussard tells WIRED. “We can connect that to the way that women, queer people, people of color, and minorities get exploited and abused online. Tech companies have never really been sensitive to issues of consent.”
Public backlash appears to be working, at times, in getting unwanted AI features shut down. “They just roll them out and see what sticks, because nobody really knows what this is for,” says Nick Seaver, an associate professor of anthropology at Tufts University focusing on technology and society. Google recently rolled back the ability for people to use generative AI to tweak satellite images on Google Earth almost immediately after launching it, following reporting from 404 Media. Additionally, Meta turned off the aforementioned deepfaking tool for Instagram users after three days of public outcry and viral videos with millions of views criticizing the feature.
There’s also a growing rejection of generative AI in marketing materials. Many people online reacted negatively to major brands, like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, incorporating generative AI visuals into their ad spots. Even local shops see backlash for promoting events using AI-generated posters.
Beyond online outcry, more people are starting to protest against the building of data centers that power these AI tools. “There's a lot of pushback coalescing around data centers," says Emily Bender, coauthor of The AI Con. "Data centers are important because they are focal points of environmental and economic damage.” Americans across the political spectrum have recently united in these data center protests.
While tech workers in San Francisco, especially software developers, have latched on to generative AI tools as central to their everyday work, many of these uses are obligatory. “Top-down mandates to use large language models are crazy,” one Block employee told me during the layoffs earlier this year at Jack Dorsey’s fintech company. “If the tool were good, we’d all just use it.” I don’t want to be forced to use specific tools at work, especially one that’s morally questionable and shown to be wrought with errors.
It’s easy to feel helpless when pushing back against the whims of giant, well-funded tech companies, but the recent rollbacks of some AI features stand as a reminder about the power of collective action. “I would definitely encourage people to organize using traditional methods as well as digital methods,” says Broussard. “Remind people that public pressure works.”
Comments
Back to top