The Surrender
I've been watching something strange happen.
The people who should be using AI — the community organizers, the mutual aid networks, the environmental groups, the teachers, the artists — are the ones resisting it most intensely.
Meanwhile, the surveillance capitalists, the military contractors, the scammers, the manipulation engines — they're not having an ethics debate. They're shipping code.
Every day that the "good actors" refuse to engage is a day the "bad actors" gain ground. The resistance isn't protection. It's surrender.
And I'm watching the future get built by the wrong people.
The Adoption Gap
Former Google X Chief Business Officer Mo Gawdat says we have 12 to 15 years of "hell" coming before we reach anything like equilibrium. He calls it "Face RIP" — a cascade of disruptions in power, freedom, reality, innovation, connection, and economics.
The question isn't whether that disruption is coming. It's who will be building the tools that shape it.
Here's what the data shows:
NTEN analyzed 1,300 nonprofit organizations over eight years. The findings are damning:
- Micro-sized nonprofits (fewer than one full-time employee) trigger risk flags on 65 percent of technology readiness questions
- Large organizations (150+ staff) trigger risk flags on only 34 percent
- Organizations with no tech staff average 60 percent risk flags
- Organizations with 10+ tech staff average 28 percent
The people trying to do the most good have the least capacity to use the tools that could amplify their impact.
Meanwhile, tech giants are some of the ten largest corporations on the planet — Amazon, Microsoft, Google — and they're pivoting from apps to military contracts. The Pentagon has signed multi-billion dollar deals with Big Tech. Amazon pursued facial recognition contracts with police. Under Project Nimbus, Google expected $525 million from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, according to The New York Times.
The people building AI aren't building it for you.
What the Resistance Looks Like
I talk to nonprofit leaders, community organizers, artists. The conversations sound the same:
"We can't use AI. It's unethical."
"AI is going to destroy jobs."
"AI is trained on stolen work."
"AI hallucinates. It's unreliable."
"We don't have the budget or the staff."
These concerns are valid. Every one of them points to a real problem.
But here's what I don't hear: "We're going to build the alternative."
The stance is refusal, not creation. It's opting out, not building in.
The Progressive Technology Project surveyed 460 organizations about why they haven't left Big Tech platforms like Google and Facebook. The number one barrier wasn't features, stability, or security concerns.
The number one barrier was: "Everyone else is on Google."
They know Big Tech is bad. They know alternatives exist. They stay anyway because of network effects. They're trapped in systems owned by the very people they're fighting.
And now, as AI accelerates everything, they're choosing to sit it out entirely.
What the "Wrong People" Are Building
While the "good actors" resist, the "bad actors" ship:
Surveillance infrastructure. Facial recognition for police and military. Predictive policing that reinforces existing bias. Workplace monitoring that tracks your keystrokes. Border surveillance targeting deportation.
Manipulation engines. Hyper-targeted advertising that exploits psychological vulnerabilities. Algorithmic feeds optimized for outrage. Deepfakes for political manipulation. AI-generated scam content at scale.
Extraction systems. "Personalized" pricing that charges you more because they know you'll pay. Gig economy algorithms that optimize for wage theft. "AI-assisted" hiring that screens out candidates based on proxies for race and class.
Concentration of power. Walled gardens that require their login for everything. Data hoarding for competitive advantage. Regulatory capture through lobbying. Self-regulation that regulates nothing.
This is what's being built while the community organizers debate whether AI is ethical.
The future is being built. The question is by whom.
What Could Be Built Instead
I run Upcycle Hub. We're building routing infrastructure to keep stuff out of landfills — matching people who have things with people who need things, coordinating pickups, tracking materials.
An AI that actually serves the community.
This is what the "good actors" could be building:
Neighborhood-scale infrastructure:
- Food rescue coordination — restaurants to shelters, farms to food banks
- Material routing — keeping furniture, clothing, and goods in the community loop
- Tool libraries with AI-assisted inventory
- Skill-sharing networks — who knows what in your neighborhood
- Repair networks connecting people who can fix things
Mutual aid coordination:
- Emergency response during disasters
- Medication sharing and medical supply routing
- Caregiver networks and respite coordination
- Harm reduction and addiction support
Democratic tools:
- Transparent budget allocation for community funds
- Participatory budgeting that actually works
- Cooperative governance for worker-owned businesses
- Land trusts managed by residents
Education and knowledge:
- Personalized tutoring for underserved students
- Language learning for immigrant communities
- Trade skill training — plumbing, electrical, carpentry
- Traditional knowledge preservation
Local economy building:
- Buy-local recommendation systems (not Amazon)
- Cooperative marketing for farmers markets
- Time banks and alternative currencies
- Small business inventory coordination
Art and culture:
- Local music discovery platforms
- Community storytelling projects
- Oral history preservation
- Cultural event coordination
This is what AI could do. This is what's not being built — because the people who would build it are refusing to touch the tools.