Law enforcement agencies across the United States have begun monitoring anti-tech extremism, classifying opposition to artificial intelligence as a potential security concern. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are tracking incidents they describe as politically motivated violence linked to resistance against AI and other emerging technologies.
Philadelphia police have acknowledged monitoring First Amendment activity critical of artificial intelligence, according to documents obtained by news organizations. The surveillance has extended to social media posts and public criticism of AI companies. Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about the scope of this monitoring, particularly its focus on protected speech.
Recent incidents have prompted the surveillance effort. A 20-year-old from Texas was arrested for allegedly attempting to burn down OpenAI's headquarters and Sam Altman's house, with authorities finding an anti-AI manifesto alongside his lighter and kerosene. In April, an Italian Instagram influencer was arrested in Rome and charged with plotting anti-tech attacks inspired by Ted Kaczynski. Two people who carried out a deadly attack on a mosque in San Diego also cited "AI slop" as motivation in their manifesto. An Indianapolis city councilor discovered gunshots fired into his home with a note reading "NO DATA CENTERS."
Researchers say grievances against the AI industry are animating both established violent extremist movements and creating new ones. "AI is becoming this driver of political violence, and that's a very new phenomenon," said Jordyn Abrams, a researcher at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University.
What distinguishes anti-AI extremism from previous waves of tech backlash is the speed and scale of change. "Not only are these whole-of-society changes and not only are they really disruptive, they're happening really quickly," said Yannick Veilleux-Lepage, an associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. "There isn't time for people to build resilience or to inoculate themselves from these changes."
The anti-tech movement has historical roots. The 19th-century Luddite rebellion and 1990s pushback against personal computers both emerged when technological disruption threatened jobs and social structures. The Unabomber's manifesto has become influential in anti-tech extremist circles since its publication in 1995.
However, tech industry leaders may be inadvertently contributing to radicalization. "In order to radicalize people, you don't actually need to have theorists or ideologues that are calling people to violence against AI, because the tech CEOs are doing a pretty good case," Veilleux-Lepage said, referring to CEOs' public statements about AI's transformative and potentially existential impact.
The classification of anti-tech sentiment as extremism has sparked debate about the boundaries between legitimate political dissent and security threats. Critics argue this approach criminalizes political viewpoints and chills free speech. Law enforcement agencies have not publicly detailed specific criteria for distinguishing protected advocacy from potential threats.