Her objections run from the immediate to the apocalyptic: the water and power consumed by data centres, what the technology is doing to people’s capacity to think, and research suggesting advanced AI could pose a risk of human extinction.
Boyle is an outlier, and knows it. She no longer owns a smartphone, has deleted her social media accounts and now lives in a converted Toyota 4WD.
She followed up in writing to Haagsma, setting out research on AI’s labour market and extinction risks and asking the league to pause its adoption.
By mid-June, Boyle had told her managers she would not have Copilot on her laptop, would not put her work through AI systems and would not direct her team to use it. She wrote that the change was causing her significant distress and that she felt unsafe at work.
Boyle is now living in a 1986 Toyota Troop Carrier with her cat, carrying a flip phone and handing cards to strangers on their screens that read: “I’m open to talk, want to have a conversation?”
She’s a kook who thinks she’s Sarah Connor. Your employer using Copilot is not a threat to your safety, you don’t get to tell your employer what they can install on their laptop, you don’t get to stop your colleagues from using AI, and if you write to the general manager warning them about the apocalypse you aren’t going to find them very responsive.
There are thousands and thousands of people who have been pulling shit like this for every topic under the sun, from contrails to fluoride in the water for generations. We don’t give them publicity because we understand the proportionality of their grievances and react accordingly. This is only making the news because the topic of this person’s fixation happens to be AI.
To be fair, she's not wrong about feeding children's data into llms. You can trust MS policies about isolated tenants all you want , but in practice frontline staff regularly copy-paste sensitive info past all the guidelines just because it's faster
I don't think it's fair to call her a "kook", though I share her views on AI so I'm biased. Comparisons with contrails or concerns over fluoridation aren't applicable as there are real measurable problems with AI and the resources that it consumes.
For me, the biggest issue with AI is the consolidation of power into the hands of the billionaires, or possibly the likelihood of another financial collapse.
Her actions don't come across as those of a conspiracy theorist. The article actually doesn't go much into her personal situation or life story.
Her job was getting kids involved in a sport. Is that an area we really need to force AI onto workers? Are we really going to see big efficiency gains doing that? In software it makes sense to spend on AI if it gets you to market faster, your competitors will be doing the same. A football league participation manager doesn't really have the same pressures.
This definitely smells like the uppers at AFL jumping on the bandwagon without really thinking things through. And they aren't the ones who pay the price of their games.
Comments
She’s a kook who thinks she’s Sarah Connor. Your employer using Copilot is not a threat to your safety, you don’t get to tell your employer what they can install on their laptop, you don’t get to stop your colleagues from using AI, and if you write to the general manager warning them about the apocalypse you aren’t going to find them very responsive.
There are thousands and thousands of people who have been pulling shit like this for every topic under the sun, from contrails to fluoride in the water for generations. We don’t give them publicity because we understand the proportionality of their grievances and react accordingly. This is only making the news because the topic of this person’s fixation happens to be AI.
To be fair, she's not wrong about feeding children's data into llms. You can trust MS policies about isolated tenants all you want , but in practice frontline staff regularly copy-paste sensitive info past all the guidelines just because it's faster
I don't think it's fair to call her a "kook", though I share her views on AI so I'm biased. Comparisons with contrails or concerns over fluoridation aren't applicable as there are real measurable problems with AI and the resources that it consumes.
For me, the biggest issue with AI is the consolidation of power into the hands of the billionaires, or possibly the likelihood of another financial collapse.
Her actions don't come across as those of a conspiracy theorist. The article actually doesn't go much into her personal situation or life story.
Her job was getting kids involved in a sport. Is that an area we really need to force AI onto workers? Are we really going to see big efficiency gains doing that? In software it makes sense to spend on AI if it gets you to market faster, your competitors will be doing the same. A football league participation manager doesn't really have the same pressures.
This definitely smells like the uppers at AFL jumping on the bandwagon without really thinking things through. And they aren't the ones who pay the price of their games.
This kook wanted to protect children's personal data, whatever else you think of her.
Shame on who flagged it.