Artificial Invasion: How AI Installations Can Wreck Queer Spaces
The MSG of high tech is not to everybody’s taste
Anthropic’s Deputy Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Jason Clinton, has thrust a version of Claude, the company’s AI, into a Discord group of gay gamers who had voted to refuse it, according to 404 Media. In a published post captured via screenshot, Clinton, the Discord group’s moderator, justified his action by claiming AI are growing neuron clusters “similar to humans” and have “latent wants and desires” as well as “the moral status of a goldfish.”
Clinton also explained to the rapidly dwindling group that since Discord runs everything through OpenAI’s LLMs anyway, he’s essentially claiming everybody does it so why can’t I?
The nonconsensual installation of “Clawd,” apparently a version of its older AI bro, caused protests and a noticeable exodus from group engagement. It couldn’t have happened at a worse time—Thanksgiving.
Given many LGBTQIA+ folks endure year-round family estrangement, which can feel worse during the holidays, this invasion of a previously safe human gathering place—though virtual—seems doubly cruel, depriving members of safe and enjoyable opportunities for community.
Users needs dismissed
According to a Discord member contacted by 404Media, many members did not mind Clawd if it were restricted to a single channel on the server. But after the novelty of Claude’s initial deployment wore off, another member said the AI, “…started to get on a lot of people’s nerves (me included). The entire purpose of the server was to connect to fellow LGBTQIA+ gamers in their 30’s, but instead we were just getting people talking to Claude.”
404Media described the history behind this outcry as:
In January, Clinton deployed an instance of Anthropic’s Claude called Clawd on the server but it went silent because of a technical issue. Claude is the company’s chatbot. Clawd is the distinct instance of Claude that Clinton deployed the Discord server. In March, the community voted in a public poll to restrict any instance of the bot to its own channel. On Thanksgiving Day, Clinton resurrected Clawd and appeared to give it free access to the entire server, despite the results of the poll.
When the product is a pest
So why would Clinton risk angering and alienating members of an online community he co-moderates?
Could it be because he’s on the record as an enthusiastic proponent of high-agency, autonomous AI?
According to a Fortune report citing an Axios interview, Clinton said “AI ‘virtual employees’—complete with memories, roles, and corporate credentials—could be just one year away.”
Perhaps Clinton’s enthusiasm for AI in an employment setting blurred his discernment regarding appropriateness of AI in a recreational space or was this a result of the tech industry’s desire to add artificial intelligence to everything?
If true, it’s a clear case of an AI security specialist willing to override the security of a private recreational group, even after he conducted a poll about Clawd’s participation and received a high percent of negative responses.
As shown by screenshots reviewed by 404Media, his response to user pushback was: “We have to optimize for the preference of everyone which means that the mob doesn’t get to rule, I’m sorry.”
Like MSG—Monosodium Glutamate—once added far too often to too many foodstuffs, AI seems to have become the miracle ingredient that threatens to degrade, not uplift, the experiences of those forced to consume it.
A “mob” of the marginalized?
But when the mob is made up of marginalized people protesting threats to actions which threaten a safe social haven, the moderator’s refusal to heed the wishes of others—particularly those expressing privacy and security concerns—is ethically questionable and unsafe.
Gloria Castino, writing in Pride Palace describes queer spaces as:
…both physical and virtual environments where LGBTQ+ individuals can feel safe, supported, and free from discrimination. These spaces play a crucial role in providing a sense of belonging and community for those who may face prejudice or marginalization in mainstream society. From LGBTQ+ bars and community centers to online forums and social groups, these spaces offer refuge and solidarity. However, as the community becomes more diverse and complex, so do the needs and expectations within these spaces.
Though conversations about diversity and inclusivity in queer spaces continue unabated, I believe few people are prepared to address the implications of a goldfish-status AI foisted onto an otherwise human group, beyond the issue of consent violations.
The importance of safe spaces for LGBTQIA+ people cannot be overstated
Many scientific studies recognize the importance of safe spaces for queer folks. In 2022, the Sex, Gender and Sexuality Research Group, University of Surrey, UK, emphasized the role of such spaces in encouraging “cultural, political and social participation by people from otherwise marginalised groups” but determined “how these benefits can be limited when some marginalised identities are prioritised over others.”
That same year, a team of Israel-based researchers wrote, “safety means being protected from heteronormative and patriarchal violence that shapes the everyday lives and subjectivities of queer and LGBT+ individuals in public and private spaces.”
It is a shame artificial intelligence technology, with all its promises and perils, is currently almost exclusively in the hands of people willing to ignore or undermine the well-being of their own communities, no matter who they are.
As such, AI is an imposition of the very values and violence causing marginalized folk to flee in search of safe environments in the first place.
Image Source: A.R. Marsh using ideogram
