This week I was on a panel at the Generative AI in Libraries (GAIL) virtual conference. Along with my fellow panelists Andrea Baer and Emily Zerrenner, I joined moderator Sarah Appedu to discuss the cognitive dissonance that we recognize between the widespread exhortations to adopt GenAI tools in libraries and the harms that we see in the usage of these tools. The panel was well attended and well received, with the most frequent comment we received in the chat was that attendees hadn’t heard about the concept of AI refusal before.
AI refusal can refer to a spectrum of approaches to AI, whether that’s refusing to use AI tools entirely, refusing the use of AI as much as possible, refusing to prioritize the use of AI, refusing to accept either boosterism or doomer narratives, refusing to accept the idea that AI is inevitable, or some other refusal. It can also refer to more cheeky ways of refusing AI, such as using scare quotes around “artificial intelligence” to indicate disbelief that these tools are actually displaying intelligence (hat tip to librarian Dave Ghamandi!).
Many readings were suggested in the chat during our panel presentation. If you’d like to learn more about AI refusal, in libraries and beyond, here are some approachable, mostly non-scholarly resources I recommend. As our moderator Sarah Appedu emphasized, it’s vital to read and learn across disciplines on this topic, so we’re not siloing our discussions at this crucial moment.
Zines
- Shard volume 31 by Thomas Vose (2024). Subtitled the “A.I. in Libraries” issue, Vose discusses the disconnect between library values and AI adoption. He asks readers “Who benefits? Who suffers?”
- AI Is Very Bad, Actually: A Manifesto by Julie Setele (2024). Using just one sheet of paper, librarian Setele lays out their primary qualms with GenAI, including their distate of the way it’s integrated into everything and framed as “magic.”
- A Librarian Against AI; or, I Think AI Should Leave by Violet Fox (2024). My 32-page zine has been popular especially with library school students. I use the ALA Code of Ethics as a starting point to discuss how using AI tools is antithetical to several of the stated values of librarianship and share potential approaches to AI refusal.
Blog posts and news articles
- Saying No to AI in Education by Allie Lopez on the blog Front Porch Republic (2024). Lopez describes the impact of educators and professionals uncritically adopting technology on the students they serve and argues against the passive acceptance of AI in educational settings.
- AI in Academic Libraries (part 1: Concerns and Commodification; part 2: Resistance and the Search for Ethical Uses) by Ruth Monnier, Matthew Noe, and Ella Gibson, published in the College & Research Libraries news column (2025). Librarians Monnier, Noe, and Gibson discuss their doubts and concerns about AI use in libraries.
- The People Refusing to Use AI by Suzanne Bearne at the BBC (2025). I despise the framing of this article, in that the AI ethics expert states it’s too late to opt out of using AI (that’s true for certain AI tools, but certainly not all). Interesting to note that it features a series of women describing their approaches, then a man saying they’re all wrong (!). But if you need more proof that this is a newsworthy topic even outside of academia, here you go.
Guide
- Refusing GenAI in Writing Studies: A Quickstart Guide by Jennifer Sano-Franchini, Megan McIntyre, and Maggie Fernandes (2024). I’ve come back to this guide frequently in considering what AI refusal looks like. The authors describe “ten premises that ground refusal as a disciplinary response to GenAI technologies,” many of which are rooted in ideas also discussed in LIS scholarship.
Popular books
- The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want by Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna (2025). An enjoyable, informative read! I especially love their “strategies for popping the hype bubble” section, which include AI refusal methods as a consumer and as a worker.
- Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech by Brian Merchant (2023). You’ll note that many discussions about AI refusal grapple with the history of the Luddites, especially as that term is frequently used as a pejorative to describe anyone supposedly fearful of new technologies. This book is a great introduction to the real history of the Luddites and the parallels between their story and the current day environment of the gig economy and tech industry overreach.
- Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence by Dan McQuillan (2022). If you’re looking for a more in-depth political approach to AI, McQuillan lays out the case for why GenAI is inherently anti-worker, leading to a more precarious state for those on the margins.
Podcasts
- Everyone’s Writing with AI (Except Me!) by Maggie Fernandes and Megan McIntyre (2024–present). Writing studies scholars and coauthors of the quickstart guide mentioned above, Fernandes and McIntyre discuss what they’re reading and invite guests to talk about the harmful impacts of AI.
- Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 by Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna (2022–present). I appreciate the approach from Bender (a linguist) and Hanna (a sociologist) in examining the hype that powers the impetus to adopt AI immediately. A wide range of topics and guests keep these episodes from feeling repetitive.
- Better Offline by Ed Zitron (2024–present). Zitron rants about the “rot economy” of the tech industry. If you want to learn more about the economic basis of the business models behind companies investing in AI, this is a great place to start.
Discord server
- Alliance for Refusing Generative AI (2025) founded by Cara Marta Messina, Stacy Wittstock, Kat Gray, Maggie Fernandes, and Megan McIntyre. A community space for discussing AI refusal “in writing studies, the humanities, and beyond.”
Keep an eye out for the writings of my copanelists, Sarah Appedu, Andrea Baer, and Emily Zerrenner, who all have such insightful things to add to the conversation—I’m grateful for their inspiration. I encourage everyone to learn more about GenAI from critical sources. Keep learning, keep sharing!
What are the main concerns Thomas Vose raises about AI in libraries?
Excellent! I’m working with some colleagues on an open syllabus about (critical approaches to) AI. Thanks for giving us more resources to include!
@Sains Data
The Thomas Vose piece is 7 pages. I think you’ll manage.
You’re a bit late to worry about the ALA Code of Ethics, we sacrificed that when we went to online databases and third-party ebook providers.
How are we as librarians showing up to be part of the AI conversation and to help shape the AI narrative within libraries if we are refusing to explore it? The horses have left the barn. How can libraries be part of the story and help ELEVATE the AI conversation and shape it so we have a seat at the table? I am by no means saying I love AI, but I also realized that AI is not going away and I for one would like to see how AI and libraries work together in creative and amazing ways that we have not even considered yet. That might take the rest of my career, but I am willing to keep exploring. I also like to write my own emails and don’t use AI much but I do read about it as much as I can, from both the doomer and the boomer side of things. Seeing lots of smoke and mirrors on the boomers (love AI side), and lots of doom and gloom from the refusal side. But what about our students? What about the tools they use? What about our Universities? How are libraries being part of the AI conversation if we just refuse to talk about the elephant in the room?
Hi Tracy – I hope you don’t mind my responding, since Violet and I worked on the panel she mentions together. AI Refusal doesn’t inherently mean not talking about it. In fact, I talk about it in way more rooms, with more people, than I’d like. I do consider it “elevating” the conversation to point out things such as that we can’t call ourselves a green, sustainable campus and in the same breath embrace GenAI.
I too read from both sides of the aisle, and because of that reading have found myself positioned pretty squarely in the camp of refusal. I used to be of the same opinion as you, actually – I felt the inevitability. It changed as I gathered more knowledge. I try to give my students (and faculty, honestly) the same chance to learn and formulate their own opinion; many of them also see past the smoke and mirrors as well as the outright doom narratives. As the technology stands, the benefits just do not outweigh the risks. If we mitigate those concerns somehow, then sure – let’s explore the possibilities. Given the GenAI companies’ focus on profit over all, though, I don’t see that happening.
Thanks for the chance to continue talking about it. 🙂