Nothing has convinced Sabine Zetteler of the value of using AI.

“I read a really great phrase recently that said something along the lines of ‘why would I bother to read something someone couldn’t be bothered to write’ and that is such a powerful statement and one that aligns absolutely with my views.”

Ms Zetteler runs her own London-based communications agency, with around 10 staff, some full-time some part-time.

“What’s the point of sending something we didn’t write, reading a newspaper written by bots, listening to a song created by AI, or me making a bit more money by sacking my administrator who has four kids?

“Where’s the joy, love or aspirational betterment even just for me as a founder in that? It means nothing to me,” she says.

Ms Zetteler is among those resisting the AI invasion, which really got going with the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022.

Since then the service, and its many rivals have become wildly popular. ChatGPT is racking up over five billion visits a month, according to software firm Semrush.

But training AI systems like ChatGPT requires huge amounts of energy and, once trained, keeping them running is also energy intensive.

While it’s difficult to quantify the electricity used by AI, a report by Goldman Sachs estimated that a ChatGPT query uses nearly 10 times as much electricity as a Google search query.

That makes some people uncomfortable.

For Florence Achery, owner of Yoga Retreats & More, the environmental impact is one reason why she vows to stay away from AI.

“My initial reaction was that AI is soulless and is a contradiction with my business, which is all about human connection,” says Achery, based in London.

“However, I found out that the environmental impact was awful with all the energy consumption required to run the data centres. I don’t think that people are aware of that.”

While Ms Zetteler admits she respects AI for all the social-good it can achieve, she says she’s concerned about the wider impact on society.

“I’m happy that AI exists for blind people if they can have articles translated by AI and anything that is truly beneficial. But in general, I don’t think it will benefit us long-term.”

Is she worried it might have a knock-on effect on her business, especially if rival companies are using AI?

“Like everything, I could save money by sending our agency to Milan on EasyJet flights rather than the train.

“Already my profit margins look unsuccessful if that’s how you measure success, but how about if you measure success by how much you’re contributing to society and how well you sleep?”

Sierra Hansen, who lives in Seattle and works in public affairs, also refuses to use AI. For her, she’s concerned that the use of AI is harming our ability to problem solve.

“Our brain is the thing that helps organise what our days look like, not going to AI Copilot and asking it to tell it how to manage my schedule.

“Our job as a human is to apply critical thinking skills, and if you are feeding simple tasks into ChatGPT then you’re not solving on your own. It’s doing the thinking for you. If I want to listen to music, I don’t need AI to create the perfect punk rock album for me.”

But not everyone has the luxury of opting out of AI.

Jackie Adams (not her real name), who works in digital marketing, resisted AI initially on environmental grounds, and because she thought using it was lazy.

“I heard about the energy needed to power data centres and the amount land they take up, and it didn’t sit right with me. I didn’t understand why we needed it,” she says.

However, about a year ago her three colleagues at the marketing firm she works for started adopting AI, for tasks such as copywriting and idea generation.

Six months ago Ms Adams had to follow them, after being told she had to cut her budget.

“Then it was out my control,” she says. She feels that continuing to resist would have hurt her career.

“I started playing with it a bit more after reading job descriptions asking for AI experience. I recently realised that if I don’t implement it into my ways of working, I’m going to get left behind.”

Now, she says, she doesn’t view tapping into AI as laziness anymore.

“It can elevate my work and make some things better,” adding that she uses it to refine copywriting work and for editing photos.

The moment to opt out of AI has already passed, says James Brusseau, a philosophy professor specialising in AI ethics at Pace University in New York.

“If you want to know why a decision is made, we will need humans. If we don’t care about that, then we will probably use AI,” he says.

“So, we will have human judges for criminal cases, and human doctors to make decisions about who should get the transplant. But, weather forecasting will be gone soon, and anesthesiology too,” says Prof Brusseau.

Ms Adam has accepted using AI at work, but she still feels despondent about AI’s growing influence.

“Even when you do a Google search it includes an AI overview, while some emails have a topline summary, So now it almost feels like we have no control. How do I turn all that off? It’s snowballing.”