AI needs a do-over. As it exists right now, I don’t give a toss what good it can do, what practical benefits it has once the techbros move on to their next mark. I don’t care about any of it at all because AI companies botched the first impressions so hard by telling me consent is a foreign concept and I need to just roll over and submit, or I’ll be left behind forever.

It was this brazen disregard for any kind of consent from the get go that did most of the work in turning me against anything AI had to offer.

If you want me to care about AI? Start over. From zero. Consent needs to be a core concept of it. If people don’t want to use it, respect that opinion. Do NOT treat every no as a thinly veiled yes. Do not force it on people who don’t want it. And if people don’t want it, don’t scream "you’ll like it!" or "it’s the future, get with it or get left behind!" at them.

Because that language sounds eerily similar to the type of language used in domestic abuse situations and is that really the way you want to come off? (Regrettably, some of the psychopaths who push this garbage would nod yes with a grin across their face because they’re absolutely depraved. These people should not be allowed to be anywhere near the helm of a tech company. But alas, this is 2026.)

In kommunalen Diskussionen sind die Chancen von Sprachmodell-KI und ihren Agenten seltsam risikobefreit. Dass die Chancen zu höherer Produktivität, mehr Effizienz oder schnellerer Bearbeitung führen, scheint gewiss. Man müsse es nur richtig machen.

Aber wie es generell „richtig“ geht, kann niemand wissen. Use-Cases und Best Practices geben Anregungen, sind aber interkommunal nicht so übertragbar, wie man sich das vorstellt. Die Beharrlichkeit und soziale Intelligenz historisch gewachsener, lokaler Organisationsstrukturen werden unterschätzt.