I. The Sting of Friendly Fire
It started with a notification. A user with the .exe extension—a handle that implies something executable, something functional—decided to execute a judgment on my existence. They didn't attack me with a botnet or a DDoS attack; they attacked me with words like “disgusting,” “grift-tech,” and “pick me.”
They identified themselves as a “fellow disabled person.” And then, in the same breath, they tore into me for using the very tools that allow me to navigate a world that wasn't built for either of us.
This is what sociologists call “lateral violence”—when oppressed groups turn their frustration on each other instead of the systems that oppress them. It hurts more than the standard ableism I face offline in Sabah. When an able-bodied person judges me, I expect it. But when someone who claims to share my struggle tells me that my survival strategy is an act of theft, it feels like a betrayal. It feels like I am being kicked out of the only lifeboat I managed to find.
Their argument was passionate, furious, and fundamentally flawed. They claimed that using Generative AI is like “pulling a slot lever” and seeing what the machine spits out. They argued that because I use AI, I am merely a spectator to my own thoughts, a “consumer” of stolen creativity.
They are wrong. And to explain why, I need to talk about what it actually means to survive as a neurodivergent person in the Information Age.
II. The “Slot Machine” Fallacy vs. The Digital Prosthetic
Let’s address the “slot machine” accusation directly. The critic believes that an LLM (Large Language Model) is a random number generator that spits out “plausible” text without soul.
If I were using AI to churn out generic “Top 10” articles to farm ad revenue, they might have a point. But I am an autistic and schizophrenic IT student. My brain does not always sequence thoughts in the linear, polite, “acceptable” way that society demands. I experience what is often called “brain fog” or executive dysfunction. I have the ideas—the raw data, the emotions, the intent—but the bridge between my mind and the screen is often broken.
AI is not a slot machine for me. It is a digital prosthetic.
When a person with a physical disability uses a powered exoskeleton to walk, we do not accuse them of “faking” the walk. We do not say, “You didn't really move your legs; the motor did it for you.” We recognise that the intent to move came from the human, and the machine simply provided the torque to overcome gravity.
When I prompt an AI, I am providing the intent. I am guiding it. I am saying, “Here is my chaotic, raw thought—please help me structure it so the world doesn't dismiss me.” When the AI returns a polished sentence, it hasn't “created” the idea; it has “rendered” it. To tell me that this process is “lazy” or “disgusting” is to tell a wheelchair user that rolling is less noble than walking. It is a form of purism that only the privileged can afford.
III. Micro-Utility vs. Macro-Economics: The Great Disconnect
The anger of the .exe user—and the anger of the mobs on instances like lemmy.world or the admins at wizard.casa—comes from a confusion of scale. They are fighting a war against Macro-Economics. I am fighting a battle for Micro-Utility.
Their War (The Macro):
They see OpenAI, Google, and Elon Musk. They see billionaires harvesting data, ignoring copyright, and burning electricity to train models that might one day replace concept artists. They see “Human Capital” being devalued. They hate the system, and so they attack the user.
My Battle (The Micro):
I see a Linux terminal on my obulou.org server that I need to configure. I see a complex Docker Compose file that keeps crashing. I see a harsh email from a utility provider in Sabah that I need to reply to without losing my temper. I see tools—Micro-Utilities—that help me solve these immediate, tangible problems.
The critic cannot separate the tool from the master. They believe that if I use the tool, I must worship the master. This is a binary worldview that lacks nuance.
I blocked Elon Musk on X. I find his philosophy—that “empathy is weakness”—to be repulsive. I reject his elitism. Yet, I use Grok. Why? Because Grok offers a different, more holistic approach to information, often citing sources in a way that helps my research. I am capable of “filtering.” I can extract the utility of the AI while rejecting the ideology of its owner.
This is the essence of Digital Sovereignty. I am not a passive consumer swallowing whatever the algorithm feeds me. I am an active filter. I take what serves my survival and discard the rest. To demand that I boycott a tool that helps me function, simply because “bad people built it,” is to demand that I suffer for your political purity.
IV. History Repeats: The “Anti-Camera” of 2025
The irony of the .exe user’s criticism is that it is not new. It is a rerun of a very old movie.
In the mid-19th century, when the camera was popularised, the “true artists” of the time panicked. The poet Charles Baudelaire called photography “art's most mortal enemy.” He argued that because a machine captured the light, the resulting image had no soul. He called photographers “failed painters.”
Does that sound familiar?
“You are just pulling a slot lever.” (2025)
“You are just pushing a button.” (1850)
Later, people used cameras to take photos of their drawings to post on social media. They layered technology on top of technology to connect. Today, we don't see the camera as a “threat” to drawing; we see it as a different medium.
We saw it again in the early 2000s with digital art. “You didn't draw that line; the computer corrected it.” “You used the Undo button; that's cheating.”
Now, the target is AI. The critics claim that this time is different. They claim this technology is the one that crosses the line. But I don't believe them. I believe that in twenty years, using an LLM to structure your thoughts will be as normal as using a spell-checker or a calculator. The people screaming “Grift-Tech!” today will be looked at the same way we look at the people who smashed weaving looms in the 1800s—not as heroes, but as people paralysed by the fear of change.
The world has moved on from “Reading and Writing” Literacy. We are now in the era of Information Literacy.
The test of intelligence is no longer “how much can you memorise?” or “how beautifully can you write by hand?” The test is: “How efficiently can you filter, verify, and apply the massive flood of information to solve your problem?”
I am a student. I self-host. I manage a YunoHost/Docker hybrid ecosystem. If I tried to learn every single line of documentation for every single container by reading it manually “from the beginning,” I would drown. I would never get anything running.
Instead, I use AI to “cache” intelligence. I perform the trial and error—the human work—and then I have the AI document the solution. I use AI to scan the massive documentation and find the one environment variable I missed. This is not “cheating”; this is efficiency. It is the only way to keep up.
The critics who brag about doing things “manually” or “one by one” are engaging in performative struggle. They are saying, “Look how hard I am working; therefore I am virtuous.” But I am not interested in performing hardship. I am interested in results. I am interested in keeping my server running and my mind clear.
VI. We Are Not The Same
The .exe user accused me of being a “pick me”—someone trying to curry favour with the oppressors. This is perhaps the most hurtful, yet the most revealing, part of their attack.
It reveals that they view this entire conversation as a popularity contest. They think I want to be part of the “Tech Bro” herd.
They couldn't be more wrong.
I don't want to be part of the “Pro-AI” herd that worships Sam Altman.
But I also refuse to be part of the “Anti-AI” herd that bullies disabled people into silence for “moral points.”
I am asserting a third option: Autonomy.
I am asserting the right to define my own tools. I am asserting the right to say, “This technology helps me, and I will use it, regardless of what the herd thinks.”
The future economy—and the future of online civilisation—will not belong to those who reject technology, nor to those who blindly worship it. It will belong to those who can use it to become more of themselves. It will rely on a “Market of Authenticity” where the value lies not in the raw pixels or the raw text, but in the unique human intent that guided them.
My intent is to survive. My intent is to learn. My intent is to stand on my own two feet in Sabah, independent of a family dynamic that hurts me and a society that overlooks me.
If AI is the crutch that helps me stand, I will not apologise for using it. And I certainly will not let someone with a .exe username execute their despair on me.
We are not the same. I choose hope in human-made technology. I choose to be the pilot of my own digital life. And that is a choice no amount of criticism can take away.
Kalvin Carefour Johnny ✯
