Educational Technology and Change Journal

By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Claude)
Editor

The Pattern of Resistance to Innovation

Over the past two centuries, major technological innovations have indeed faced resistance, though the nature and intensity varied considerably. AI is no exception. Some innovations encountered fierce opposition rooted in economic fears, moral concerns, or cultural anxieties, while others were embraced with remarkable enthusiasm. The pattern isn’t universal—pushback depended heavily on whose interests were threatened and how rapidly the technology disrupted existing social structures. A historical view might provide perspective on the current resistance to AI.

The Locomotive and Railroad (1825-1840s)

When George Stephenson’s steam locomotives began operating commercially in the 1820s, they sparked genuine panic across Britain and later America. Critics warned that traveling at speeds exceeding twenty miles per hour would cause passengers’ bodies to melt or their brains to become damaged from the unnatural velocity.

Physicians claimed the rapid motion through varying air pressures would cause insanity. Landowners fought against railway construction through their properties, leading to protracted legal battles. The canal companies and turnpike trusts, recognizing an existential threat to their businesses, lobbied vigorously against railway charters in Parliament. Some communities actively sabotaged early rail lines, viewing them as invasive and dangerous.

Religious leaders occasionally preached against railways as ungodly machines that defied natural human limitations. Despite these concerns, the economic advantages proved overwhelming, and by the 1840s, railroad construction had become unstoppable, though labor displacement in traditional transport industries created lasting economic hardship for canal workers and coaching inn operators.

Photography (1839-1860s)

Louis Daguerre’s announcement of practical photography in 1839 immediately troubled portrait painters, who correctly foresaw their profession’s diminishment. The French painter Paul Delaroche reportedly declared that “from today, painting is dead,” though this proved premature. More significant was the moral panic surrounding photography’s ability to capture reality without artistic interpretation.

Critics worried about photography’s use for surveillance and its potential to invade privacy. The medium’s capacity to reproduce images challenged traditional notions of artistic authenticity and craftsmanship. As photography became more accessible in the 1850s, concerns emerged about its use for pornography and forged documentation. Some indigenous peoples and religious communities feared that being photographed would capture or steal one’s soul, a belief that persisted for decades.

Despite these anxieties, photography’s utility for documentation, science, and personal memory proved irresistible, and it rapidly became integrated into Western society, though debates about photographic truth and manipulation continue today.

The Telephone (1876-1900s)

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone, patented in 1876, encountered skepticism and social resistance despite its obvious utility. Early critics dismissed it as an expensive toy with limited practical application, questioning why anyone would need to speak to someone not physically present. Newspaper editorials worried that the telephone would erode face-to-face social interaction and eliminate the thoughtfulness required for written correspondence.

Privacy concerns emerged immediately—party lines meant neighbors could eavesdrop on conversations, and people feared their private communications might be overheard by operators or intercepted. Some religious leaders cautioned that the telephone could be an instrument of the devil, allowing disembodied voices to invade the home.

Business managers initially resisted installing telephones, believing they would distract workers and disrupt established hierarchies by allowing lower-level employees to communicate directly with outsiders. The medical community raised concerns about “telephone ear” and other supposed health effects from holding receivers against one’s head.

Despite these reservations, businesses quickly recognized the telephone’s competitive advantages, and by the 1890s, resistance had largely evaporated as the technology became indispensable for commerce and gradually for social connection.

Electricity and Electric Lighting (1880s-1900s)

Thomas Edison’s practical electric light bulb in 1879 and the subsequent electrification of cities faced substantial opposition from the entrenched gas lighting industry, which mounted aggressive campaigns to discredit the new technology. The “War of Currents” in the late 1880s saw Edison’s direct current system competing against George Westinghouse’s alternating current, with Edison infamously promoting AC as dangerously deadly—even arranging public electrocutions of animals to demonstrate its lethality.

Many people genuinely feared electricity as an invisible, potentially lethal force that could kill without warning. Homeowners worried about fires from electrical faults, concerns that were legitimate given early wiring standards. Insurance companies charged higher premiums for electrified buildings. Some communities passed ordinances restricting or banning electrical installations, particularly overhead wires that were considered unsightly and dangerous.

Religious objections emerged from those who viewed electric lighting as hubris—an attempt to defy God’s natural cycle of day and night. Factory workers in the gas industry faced unemployment as electric lighting spread. Nevertheless, electricity’s superiority in brightness, cleanliness, and safety compared to gas eventually overcame resistance, and by 1910, electrification was rapidly advancing in urban areas.

The Automobile (1900s-1920s)

Karl Benz’s motorcar of 1885-86 and Henry Ford’s Model T of 1908 revolutionized transportation but faced fierce resistance from multiple quarters. Early automobiles were unreliable, noisy, and frightening to horses, causing numerous accidents as panicked animals bolted. Rural communities sometimes stretched chains across roads or scattered nails to discourage motorists from driving through their towns. The “horseless carriage” was initially seen as a rich man’s toy that endangered pedestrians and traditional road users.

In Britain, the Red Flag Act required motor vehicles to be preceded by a person on foot carrying a red flag, effectively limiting their speed and utility until the law’s repeal in 1896. Farmers and rural residents resented automobiles for scaring livestock and churning up unpaved roads. Urban critics worried that cars would create chaos in crowded streets designed for pedestrians and horses. Public health officials raised concerns about accidents and air pollution from exhaust fumes.

The horse-related industries—blacksmiths, stable operators, carriage makers, and fodder suppliers—fought against the automobile’s rise, recognizing the threat to their livelihoods. Despite this resistance, the automobile’s speed, convenience, and declining costs ensured its triumph, fundamentally reshaping society by the 1920s.

Radio Broadcasting (1920s-1930s)

Guglielmo Marconi’s wireless telegraphy evolved into commercial radio broadcasting in the 1920s, bringing entertainment and news into homes but also generating concerns about its social impact. Educators and intellectuals worried that radio would degrade public taste by promoting lowbrow entertainment over serious culture and literature.

Parents feared that radio would make children passive consumers rather than active participants in play and learning. Newspaper publishers initially viewed radio with hostility, seeing it as competition for advertising revenue and attempting to limit its news-gathering capabilities. Some critics warned that radio gave too much power to whoever controlled the airwaves, enabling propaganda and manipulation of public opinion—concerns that proved prescient in the 1930s when authoritarian regimes exploited radio for political control.

Religious leaders divided over radio, with some embracing it for evangelism while others viewed it as bringing secular corruption into the sanctity of the home. The music industry initially opposed radio broadcasting of recorded music, fearing it would eliminate the need to purchase records or attend live performances. Despite these concerns, radio’s popularity exploded rapidly, and by the 1930s, it had become central to American family life, though regulatory frameworks emerged to address some of the legitimate concerns about monopoly control and content standards.

Commercial Aviation (1920s-1950s)

The Wright brothers’ first flight in 1903 eventually led to commercial aviation, but passenger air travel faced enormous skepticism and resistance through the mid-twentieth century. Early airline passengers were considered daredevils or foolhardy, as crashes were common and often fatal. Insurance companies refused to cover air travelers or charged prohibitive premiums.

Many people had deep-seated fears about the unnaturalness of human flight, believing that if humans were meant to fly, they would have been given wings. Religious objections emerged from those who viewed aviation as defying divine intention. The railroad industry initially dismissed aviation as impractical for mass transportation and lobbied against government subsidies for airmail and airport construction, which were crucial to aviation’s early development.

Coastal shipping companies similarly opposed aviation’s development. Some communities resisted airport construction near their towns, citing noise, safety concerns, and property value impacts. Medical professionals speculated about unknown health effects from high-altitude flight. The industry faced a crisis of confidence after several high-profile crashes in the 1930s and 1940s. Only after World War II demonstrated aviation’s reliability and capability did widespread public acceptance emerge, with the jet age of the 1950s finally making air travel routine for middle-class passengers.

Television (1940s-1960s)

Practical television broadcasting emerged in the late 1930s but became widespread after World War II, immediately sparking concerns about its social impact that echoed earlier radio anxieties but with greater intensity. Educators and child development experts warned that television would damage children’s cognitive development, reduce literacy, and replace creative play with passive viewing.

Social critics like Newton Minow famously called television a “vast wasteland” in 1961, arguing it degraded cultural standards. Parents worried about television’s effects on family dynamics, as families gathered around the set rather than engaging in conversation or traditional activities. The film industry initially viewed television as an existential threat and refused to sell content to broadcasters, though this position eventually reversed.

Religious leaders worried that television brought morally questionable content into homes, with concerns about violence, sexual content, and challenges to traditional values. Medical professionals raised concerns about eye strain and sedentary lifestyles. Some intellectuals dismissed television viewing as intellectually numbing and socially isolating.

Despite widespread hand-wringing, television adoption proceeded at an unprecedented pace—by 1960, nearly 90 percent of American households owned a television set. The concerns about television’s effects weren’t entirely unfounded, as research would later document various impacts on attention spans, political discourse, and cultural consumption patterns.

Personal Computers (1970s-1990s)

The personal computer revolution, catalyzed by machines like the Apple II in 1977 and IBM PC in 1981, faced relatively less organized resistance than earlier innovations, but significant concerns emerged nonetheless. Early skeptics dismissed personal computers as expensive toys for hobbyists with no practical applications for ordinary people.

Business executives resisted decentralizing computing power, preferring centralized mainframes that maintained information control hierarchies. In the 1980s, educators debated whether computers would enhance or diminish learning, with some arguing that computer-based instruction would replace human teachers and reduce students’ interpersonal skills. Parents worried about children becoming isolated, antisocial, and obsessed with computer games.

The publishing and print industries initially dismissed computers as threats to books and traditional literacy. Workplace resistance emerged from employees who felt threatened by computerization, fearing job displacement or struggling to adapt to new systems. Ergonomic concerns arose about repetitive strain injuries and eye damage from screen use. As computers became networked in the 1990s, anxieties about privacy, security, and the digital divide intensified.

Unlike earlier innovations, personal computers faced less organized industrial opposition because they didn’t immediately threaten existing industries—instead, they created new markets and gradually transformed existing ones, making resistance less concentrated but concerns about social impacts more diffuse and ongoing.

The Internet and World Wide Web (1990s-2000s)

The Internet existed since the 1960s for military and academic purposes, but Tim Berners-Lee’s World Wide Web in 1991 and the subsequent commercialization of the Internet in the mid-1990s brought it to the masses, generating intense debate about its implications. Early critics dismissed the Internet as a fad, with Newsweek infamously publishing a 1995 article titled “The Internet? Bah!” that questioned its staying power.

Concerns emerged about the Internet facilitating criminal activity, pornography, and predatory behavior toward children, leading to moral panic and calls for regulation. Traditional media companies initially resisted the Internet, viewing it as competition that would undermine their business models—newspapers, in particular, struggled to adapt as classified advertising revenue evaporated.

Educators debated whether Internet research would make students intellectually lazy, unable to conduct traditional library research or evaluate source credibility. Privacy advocates warned about data collection and surveillance capabilities. Social critics worried that Internet communication would isolate people and replace genuine human connection with superficial online interaction.

Governments worldwide struggled with how to regulate or control Internet content, with some implementing strict censorship while others protected it as free speech. The speed of Internet adoption meant that resistance was often overwhelmed before it could organize effectively, though concerns about the Internet’s social, economic, and political impacts have proven persistent and in many cases prescient, as issues of misinformation, monopoly power, privacy erosion, and social polarization have intensified.

Artificial Intelligence (2010s-Present)

The current wave of artificial intelligence technology, particularly following the November 2022 release of ChatGPT and subsequent generative AI systems, has ignited one of the most complex and multifaceted technological debates in recent history. Unlike previous innovations that emerged gradually and allowed society time to adapt, modern AI capabilities have advanced with startling speed, compressing decades of anticipated progress into mere years. This acceleration has produced resistance that combines nearly every form of pushback witnessed in previous technological revolutions, while introducing concerns genuinely novel to the AI era.

The creative industries have mounted some of the most visible opposition, echoing the concerns of nineteenth-century portrait painters facing photography. Artists, illustrators, writers, and musicians argue that AI systems trained on their work without permission or compensation constitute theft of intellectual property and threaten their livelihoods. Unlike photography, which still required human operators and creative vision, generative AI can produce finished works in seconds, potentially flooding markets with content that competes directly with human creators.

Legal battles have erupted over copyright issues, with fundamental questions about whether AI-generated content can be copyrighted and whether training AI on copyrighted material constitutes fair use. The Authors Guild, major publishers, visual artists, and music rights organizations have filed lawsuits against AI companies, seeking to establish legal precedents that may shape the technology’s future development and deployment.

Economic anxieties about AI extend far beyond creative fields. White-collar professionals who believed their expertise insulated them from automation now face potential displacement. Programmers watch as AI coding assistants become increasingly capable. Paralegals, accountants, radiologists, customer service representatives, translators, and many others in knowledge work see AI systems approaching or exceeding human-level performance in their domains.

Goldman Sachs and other economic analysts have published estimates suggesting AI could eventually affect hundreds of millions of jobs globally. This wave of automation concerns differs from previous technological disruptions because it targets cognitive rather than manual labor, affecting the college-educated middle class rather than primarily factory workers or manual laborers. The social contract that encouraged workers to pursue education and skilled professions as protection against automation appears threatened, creating anxiety across socioeconomic strata.

Educational institutions face an unprecedented crisis of assessment and pedagogy. Students can now generate essays, solve complex problems, and complete assignments using AI tools that are increasingly difficult to detect. Universities and schools have struggled to respond, with some embracing AI as an educational tool while others attempt to ban its use, often unsuccessfully. Educators debate whether AI represents an opportunity to transform learning—freeing students from rote work to focus on higher-order thinking—or whether it will create a generation unable to write, think critically, or develop fundamental skills.

The cheating concerns echo earlier anxieties about calculators in mathematics education, but the scope is far broader, affecting every subject and discipline. Some educators argue that resisting AI is futile and that curricula must adapt to teach AI literacy and collaboration rather than treating it as contraband.

Existential concerns about AI safety have moved from science fiction to mainstream discourse, with prominent technologists, researchers, and even AI company leaders warning about potential catastrophic risks. The fear that advanced AI systems might become uncontrollable, pursue goals misaligned with human values, or even pose existential threats to humanity represents a genuinely novel form of technological anxiety.

No previous innovation prompted serious discussion about whether it might lead to human extinction or the permanent loss of human agency. Organizations dedicated to AI safety research argue for slowing development until alignment problems are solved, while critics of this position contend that exaggerated doom scenarios distract from immediate, concrete harms. This debate has produced unusual alliances and divisions, with some technologists advocating for regulatory frameworks or even development moratoriums—a remarkable departure from Silicon Valley’s traditionally libertarian ethos.

The rapid deployment of AI systems has also exposed troubling issues of bias, discrimination, and fairness. AI systems trained on historical data can perpetuate and amplify existing societal biases related to race, gender, age, and other characteristics. Facial recognition systems have shown higher error rates for people of color. Hiring algorithms have demonstrated gender bias. Credit scoring and criminal justice risk assessment tools have raised questions about algorithmic fairness and due process.

These concerns reflect legitimate worries that automating decisions without transparency or accountability could entrench discrimination while making it harder to identify and challenge. Civil rights organizations have mobilized against certain AI applications, particularly facial recognition in law enforcement and algorithmic decision-making in consequential domains like housing, employment, and criminal justice.

Privacy and surveillance concerns have intensified as AI enables unprecedented data collection and analysis capabilities. The technology can synthesize information from disparate sources, recognize patterns in behavior, generate realistic deepfakes, and conduct surveillance at scales previously impossible. Authoritarian governments have deployed AI for social control, from China’s social credit systems to facial recognition networks monitoring entire populations.

Democratic societies grapple with how to balance AI’s legitimate uses in security and commerce against rights to privacy and freedom from pervasive monitoring. The ability of AI to generate convincing synthetic media—fake videos, audio recordings, and images of real people—threatens to undermine trust in all digital evidence, with potentially catastrophic implications for journalism, justice systems, and democratic discourse.

The concentration of AI development in a handful of wealthy technology companies has raised antitrust and power concerns. Training advanced AI systems requires computational resources, data, and capital that only the largest corporations and most powerful governments can marshal. This concentration differs from previous technologies that could be developed and deployed by smaller entities.

Critics warn that AI monopolies could exercise unprecedented economic and social control, determining what information people access, what jobs exist, and how decisions affecting billions of people are made. The geopolitical dimension is equally concerning, with AI capabilities becoming central to national security competition, raising the specter of an AI arms race that could prove destabilizing.

Environmental concerns about AI’s energy consumption have emerged more recently as researchers have documented the enormous computational resources required to train large models. The carbon footprint of developing and running AI systems conflicts with climate goals, creating tension between technological progress and environmental sustainability. Data centers powering AI services consume vast amounts of electricity and water for cooling, straining resources particularly in regions facing water scarcity or relying on fossil fuel energy grids.

Misinformation and the erosion of shared reality represent perhaps the most pressing near-term concern. AI-generated content can flood online spaces with plausible-sounding but false information, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish truth from fabrication. The ability to generate personalized disinformation at scale could overwhelm human capacity to fact-check and could be weaponized to manipulate elections, incite violence, or destabilize societies. Unlike previous technologies that raised information quality concerns, AI can actively generate convincing falsehoods rather than merely spreading existing misinformation.

Religious and philosophical objections to AI have emerged more slowly but are gaining attention. Some religious thinkers worry about the spiritual implications of creating artificial minds, questioning whether humans should attempt to replicate consciousness or intelligence. Others raise concerns about AI potentially diminishing human dignity, purpose, or the special status of humans in creation. Philosophers debate questions of machine consciousness, moral status, and whether advanced AI systems might deserve rights or protections, questions that previous technologies never prompted.

Despite this formidable array of concerns, AI development and deployment continue at a breakneck pace, driven by enormous economic incentives, competitive pressures, and genuine beneficial applications. AI assists in drug discovery, climate modeling, disease diagnosis, accessibility tools for disabled individuals, and countless other valuable purposes. The technology’s defenders argue that slowing development would forfeit these benefits and potentially cede leadership to less scrupulous actors. This tension between risks and benefits, combined with the technology’s rapid evolution, makes calibrating appropriate responses extraordinarily difficult.

Historical lessons suggest several patterns relevant to the current AI debate. First, resistance alone has never stopped a technology offering substantial economic or practical advantages. Second, many concerns about new technologies have proven prescient—television did affect attention spans and social interaction, the Internet did enable unprecedented surveillance and misinformation, automobiles did cause massive environmental damage through sprawl and emissions.

Third, societies have successfully implemented regulatory frameworks that preserved technologies’ benefits while mitigating harms, from traffic laws for automobiles to broadcast standards for radio and television to environmental regulations for industrial technologies. Fourth, the distributional effects of technology matter enormously—who benefits and who bears the costs shapes both the resistance technologies face and their long-term social impacts. Fifth, early deployment decisions can lock in problematic patterns that become increasingly difficult to change as systems scale and stakeholders multiply.

The AI situation differs from historical precedents in crucial ways. The technology’s potential scope encompasses nearly all cognitive domains, not just specific industries or activities. Its development is proceeding faster than regulatory institutions can adapt. The stakes potentially include existential risks alongside more mundane economic and social harms. The concentration of power in a few organizations is unprecedented. These factors suggest that historical patterns may be inadequate guides for navigating the AI transition.

Conclusion

The historical pattern reveals that major innovations typically faced some resistance, but its intensity and legitimacy varied dramatically. Technologies that directly threatened established industries—railroads versus canals, automobiles versus horse-related businesses—provoked the fiercest organized opposition. Innovations that disrupted social patterns and cultural norms generated moral panics and concerns about social cohesion. However, when technologies offered clear practical advantages and created new opportunities rather than merely displacing existing systems, resistance tended to be less organized and shorter-lived.

Yet history also teaches humility. Many concerns that seemed like mere resistance to change proved prophetic. Television did alter childhood development and political discourse. Automobiles did reshape cities in problematic ways and contribute to climate change. The Internet did enable surveillance capitalism and social fragmentation. Social media did affect mental health and democratic processes. The critics weren’t simply wrong—they identified real harms that society struggled to address after the technologies became entrenched.

The artificial intelligence revolution combines elements of every previous technological disruption while introducing genuinely novel challenges. Like the railroad, it promises to revolutionize logistics and commerce. Like photography, it challenges notions of authenticity and creativity. Like the telephone and Internet, it transforms communication. Like electricity, it could become foundational infrastructure.

Like the automobile, it may reshape social structures. Like television, it raises concerns about cognitive effects and cultural degradation. But unlike any previous technology, AI potentially affects every knowledge domain simultaneously, advances faster than institutions can adapt, and raises questions about human purpose and control that previous innovations never prompted.

The lesson from history is not that resistance is futile or that concerns are invariably exaggerated. Rather, it’s that society’s response matters enormously. The negative consequences of previous technologies weren’t inevitable—they resulted from deployment decisions, regulatory choices, and distributional arrangements that could have been different. Traffic fatalities weren’t inherent to automobiles but reflected choices about safety standards, urban design, and drunk driving laws.

Television’s impact on children depended on content standards, parental involvement, and educational systems’ responses. The Internet’s problems with misinformation and monopoly resulted partly from early decisions about platform liability, antitrust enforcement, and privacy protection.

For artificial intelligence, the crucial question isn’t whether to proceed—that decision has effectively been made by economic forces and competitive pressures—but how to proceed. History suggests several principles for navigating technological transitions more successfully. First, take concerns seriously even when economic interests push for rapid deployment. Second, invest in understanding effects before they become entrenched and difficult to reverse.

Third, ensure that benefits are broadly shared rather than concentrated while costs are distributed widely. Fourth, develop regulatory frameworks that preserve innovation while protecting against identified harms. Fifth, maintain democratic input into decisions about how transformative technologies are developed and deployed rather than allowing purely market or technical imperatives to dominate.

The AI transition will likely be messy, contested, and incomplete, like every major technological shift before it. Some current concerns will prove overblown while others prove prescient. New issues will emerge that no one anticipated. Economic and competitive pressures will override some cautions. Regulatory responses will lag and sometimes prove counterproductive. Yet the outcome isn’t predetermined.

The extent to which AI benefits humanity or harms it, empowers people or concentrates control, augments human capabilities or displaces human agency—these depend on choices being made now about how the technology is governed, who controls it, and whose interests it serves. History offers both sobering reminders of how technological transitions can go wrong and encouraging examples of how thoughtful responses can preserve benefits while mitigating harms. The challenge is to learn from both.

[End]

Filed under: Uncategorized |