The anti-AI crowd is giving "real farmers don't use tractors" energy, and it's getting old.

Look, I get it. "AI slop" is everywhere. Bad AI art, hollow AI writing, shitty music being generated, chatbots regurgitating nonsense. There's plenty to criticize. But I'm noticing a legitimate critique is slowly turning into a tribal identity, and now reflexively hating anything AI-adjacent has become the intellectually lazy default for a lot of people online. The thing is, we've been here before. When the mechanical tractor started replacing horse-drawn plows in the early 20th century, farmers faced the same resistance to new technology. Some legitimate concerns existed, but much of the backlash was rooted in fear of change rather than rational analysis. Today's anti-AI movement mirrors this pattern—valid points about AI's current limitations and misuse are getting drowned out by blanket rejection. The real issue isn't whether AI exists; it's how we choose to use it. Tools are neutral. A tractor can be used to cultivate crops or destroy them. Similarly, AI can generate garbage or solve real problems. Instead of tribal identity politics around technology, we should focus on developing better practices, stronger ethics, and smarter regulation. Dismissing all AI as inherently bad isn't intellectually rigorous—it's just the new Luddite fallacy.