Saying no to AI feels safe. It feels ethical. In a world where we’re constantly inundated with technology, resistance can feel like the only choice left.
But here’s the paradox: refusal carries risks, too.
When services reject technology outright, the cost is often borne by those who need them. Underfunded systems mean unanswered calls, long waitlists, or inconsistent support. A survivor reaching out may find no one available. A pattern of escalating danger may go unflagged. In a stand against automation disguised as protection, refusal can sometimes create neglect.
This doesn’t mean AI should be a source of empathy or become the first point of contact in a crisis. It means resistance isn’t neutral. Saying no doesn’t freeze time, it shapes outcomes. And those outcomes matter most for the people already living in danger.
So, the harder question isn’t should we automate or not? It’s what risks do we create when we refuse?
That’s the hidden cost this blog will keep coming back to: when resistance, intended to safeguard, unintentionally leaves survivors with less.
Leave a Reply