Key Takeaways
- The notion that AI progress is “inevitable” strips citizens of agency and fuels populist backlash.
- A close alliance between U.S. tech giants and the White House is pushing an unchecked AI agenda framed as a race to “build a god in a box.”
- Australia’s strategy to become a data‑export hub mirrors the Saudi‑oil model, risking dependence on Silicon Valley while ignoring environmental and social costs.
- The AI industry’s value rests on displacing workers, exploiting creators’ work, massive energy‑water consumption, and potential existential threats.
- Grassroots resistance is emerging: community opposition to data‑centres, creator lawsuits over stolen training data, and consumer pushback against corporate‑military tech partnerships.
- Democratic tools—privacy reform, digital duty of care, data‑centre standards, workplace negotiations—are being contested as the only means to reclaim control over AI’s trajectory.
The Inevitability Doctrine Undermines Democracy
The essay opens by identifying a core driver of today’s populist surge: “the sense of inevitability that surrounds what we are told is the march of progress.” By presenting the future as a fait accompli, elites “poison the civic well by dealing us out of the game.” This framing removes the possibility of democratic negotiation, turning policy into a predetermined trajectory that citizens must accept or reject in vain.
U.S. Tech Overlords and the White House Alliance
In the United States, “the unholy alliance between the tech overlords and the White House is creating its own AI reality untethered to the will of the people.” The authors note that former President Trump and Silicon Valley leaders have jointly decided “we must hit the accelerator and dispense with guardrails to ‘win’ an ill‑defined race to build a god in a box.” This reckless push, described as “a reckless exercise of power from a waning empire,” manufactures a self‑fulfilling prophecy of inevitable AI dominance.
Australia’s Data‑Export Gambit
Australia, seeking agency in a chaotic global landscape, has opted to “grab on to this juggernaut.” The government envisions turning the nation into a data‑export hub: “using renewables to power massive centres in the desert, converting solar into AI tokens and piping them up to Asia, a new export industry that will power our common wealth.” The piece quotes the analogy that Australia would become “to US tech data what the Saudis are to oil.” While the strategy appears logical within the inevitability doctrine, it risks locking the country into a client‑state relationship with Silicon Valley.
Forgotten Consequences of the AI Push
The text warns that the pursuit of this vision blinds policymakers to foreseeable harms. The AI industry “derives value by replacing workers, it has been built on the stolen work of creators, its unregulated deployment is causing unconscionable harms particularly in theatres of war, it has an insatiable thirst for energy and water, while even its creators say there’s a not insignificant chance it will destroy humanity.” By demanding concession rather than genuine trade‑off analysis, the inevitability doctrine obscures these risks and fuels a democratic deficit.
Populist Backlash in the United States
The backlash is already visible: “We are seeing this in the US where the Bannon right and Sanders left are joining forces to block the scale out of datacentres, part of a broader and timely political reckoning.” This unlikely coalition signals that citizens across the ideological spectrum are rejecting the notion that AI expansion is beyond question, seeking instead to reclaim democratic control over infrastructure that shapes daily life.
Australian Resistance Takes Shape
Similar stirrings are evident domestically. The article highlights three concrete examples:
-
Public scepticism of tech overlords: “Australians who despite their high take-up of some AI tools remain among the world’s most sceptical, have a low tolerance for tech overlords.” GetUp’s successful campaign against Coles’ partnership with Palantir—“the data company that licenses its software to the US military who bomb children and immigration officials to track individuals”—demonstrates how consumer activism can expose uncomfortable corporate‑military ties.
-
Creators defending their work: “Creators whose work has been stolen to train models that will diminish the value of their future careers are standing their ground… demanding compensation for the theft of their work as well as an ongoing model to give them control over the terms of its use.” This reflects a growing push for intellectual‑property redress in the AI training pipeline.
- Community‑led data‑centre opposition: The failed Firmus IPO—intended to be “the biggest Australian float since Telstra”—collapsed after a Sydney datacentre withdrew amid local pressure. The piece notes that “the growing community backlash to datacentres had some scratching their heads about the prospects of a hyper‑scale out,” indicating that grassroots opposition can derail even flagship projects.
These instances illustrate that “consumers, creators, communities are all challenging the ‘inevitability’ storyline… suggesting our democratic faculties have not yet been fully exhausted.”
The Durability of the Inevitability Narrative
Despite these counter‑punches, the doctrine remains potent: “the ‘inevitability’ doctrine is durable and any pushback will need to be ongoing, because these companies have the resources, influence and bald self‑interest to pursue their objectives with all the commitment of an AI agent gone rogue.” The greatest threat to democracy, the essay argues, is not merely the misuse of unregulated AI but the broader reality that “we have no say in what is happening to us.” As long as citizens feel excluded, the sense of inevitability will persist, feeding further populist unrest.
Democratic Battles Ahead
Looking forward, the piece outlines forthcoming arenas of contest: “In our parliament over the coming weeks there will be fights to land privacy reform, a digital duty of care, standards on datacentres and rules on how governments will use the technology on its citizens. In workplaces there will be struggles over usage, surveillance and displacement. In our schools and social circles, real negotiations on how we choose to use the bots and agents, or whether we need to use them at all.” The author warns that tech interests will try to exhaust public energy, betting that “we just all run out of steam and seek refuge in the user experiences designed to meet our every desire.” Yet, the resistance felt by many is genuine, and as long as Australia remains a democracy, the ballot box offers the venue to demand leaders confront the false promise of inevitability.
Conclusion: Inevitability Is a Choice
The essay closes with a decisive reminder: “Because here’s the thing: inevitability is also a choice.” By recognizing that the narrative of unavoidable AI progress is constructed rather than natural, citizens can re‑assert agency, demand accountability, and shape a technological future aligned with democratic values rather than dictated by unchecked corporate‑state power.
Word count: approximately 910 words.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2026/oct/14/ai-resistance-inevitability-is-choice-australia-digital-duty-of-care