AI vegans: who are they against and why? Defending “grey matter”

We have all heard of vegans—people who, unlike vegetarians, abstain not only from all types of meat but also from milk (except for breastfeeding infants), eggs, and other products (or additives) derived from animals in their daily lives. Vegans also avoid clothing and household items made from animal materials (leather, wool, etc.) and may even refuse to attend events where animals are used for entertainment.

Today, a new movement is emerging on the global stage, whose supporters are called “AI vegans”—people who consciously reject the advantages of artificial intelligence (AI) in their daily lives. They avoid using ChatGPT and other forms of generative AI because they do not want their creative or intellectual work to be “replaced” by a non-living artificial intelligence.

First and foremost, this movement includes people who refuse to participate in competitions and intellectual contests where other participants, without shame, submit works created with the help of AI. Many “AI vegans” have shared their own experiences: as an experiment, they once used artificial intelligence to prepare entries for a competition—and ended up winning first place. This experience encouraged them to continue defending the value of “grey matter” and the uniquely human, emotionally and sensually grounded paradigm of creativity.

Moreover, members of this movement emphasise that AI, when prompted, produces a ready-made product—text, music, or an image—not through independent reasoning, but as a result of summarising accumulated data in its archive, created by “other” people. In other words, “AI vegans” see AI as a thief of thoughts, reflections, and creative insights from other authors.

According to several experts, the current situation is fundamentally different from, for example, the famous chess matches of the past between leading world grandmasters and computers. In those cases, the game was officially “human versus machine.” Today, however, we are seeing something entirely different: a participant can enter a competition without exerting any intellectual effort, competing on equal footing with those who worked independently.

For this reason, “AI vegans” are convinced of the immorality of submitting works to juries that rely on the “theft of others’ ideas.” By using such tools, they argue, a person essentially betrays their own “ego” and their authentic “self.”

Some see this movement as a protest against “new forms of human exploitation.” But more fundamentally, the objection stems from the fact that this new mode of creating intellectual work or artistic output—whether by musicians, writers, or other creators—effectively represents humanity’s abandonment of independent thinking.

Another concern is the shaping of a person’s worldview by AI itself, in ways that serve vested interests. What is white can be presented as black, and darkness called light. In such a model, critical judgment may gradually disappear, opening the grim prospect of forsaking the work of the soul and the heart.

A certain analogy arises with Andersen’s Kai from The Snow Queen, who saw the world solely through shards of ice lodged in his eye and heart—shards that programmed his thoughts and erased his inner spiritual impulses.

Supporters of this perspective are convinced that this way of life, reinforced in part by the constant streams of information we receive even involuntarily—through social media and other digital technologies—has a clear purpose: the destruction of critical thinking as a whole.

At the core of this, in their view, is the desire of the same vested interests to create a compliant “living robot”—a kind of modern “zombie” who can eventually be controlled as easily as a mechanical device. After all, when people submit work that appears to be their own in exams or competitions, many do not even feel responsible, because they do not engage with the substance of what AI has produced for them.

This gives rise to the widespread indifference and lack of empathy we are witnessing today. Especially since some bots (or trolls?) openly encourage us not to react to events in various parts of the world that claim human lives or destroy homes. Moreover, these same bots (or trolls?) effectively set trends—dictating tastes, dress codes, and, most importantly, thoughts.

Azerbaijan’s national security architecture relies heavily on a strategy of information security and cybersecurity. Here, it is also important to recall the words of the president, who noted that although “ideological provocations against us are continuing,” they yield no results for those behind them, because “the strong will of our people and our national spirit stand in their way.” At the same time, he emphasises that “we must always be ready for it and expose the dirty games played against us.”