Humanist Gets Religious Exemption from Using AI at Work

A research administrator at the University of Kentucky objected on religious grounds to the pressure the university was putting on him and other employees to rely on AI in their work.

With the help of the American Humanist Association (AHA), he was able to secure a Title VII exemption from using the technology.

David Durman “felt he was being asked to offload his thinking to tools like Microsoft Teams Copilot, Claude and ChatGPT bots in his day-to-day work. That felt like a violation of his beliefs,” reports Religion News Service (RNS).

Durman is quoted in a press release from the AHA explaining his beliefs and how they relate to AI:

As a Humanist, promoting the wellbeing and flourishing of humanity is paramount to how I live my life, and I believe that our capacity to think and reason for ourselves is worth protecting… When it comes to AI technology — particularly generative AI and LLMs, it’s clear to me that the existence and use of these technologies run contrary to human wellbeing. AI is interfering with people’s ability to earn a living, the environmental costs spell disaster for humanity and our planet, and its supplanting and theft of human creativity threaten elements of our culture like art and literature that make society flourish. I sought out workplace accommodations because using AI violates my deeply held Humanist beliefs which demand I take personal responsibility for the morality of my actions. I cannot, in good conscience, partake in the use and proliferation of this technology.

Durman told RNS:

The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person… Offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.

RNS reported that Durman “worries AI could affect society in ways that are harmful. As a humanist, he believes in the importance of human flourishing. ‘At a societal level, I think that the use of AI technology runs counter to that,’ he said.”

Durman was inspired by a software engineer who received an exemption from using AI at work based on her beliefs as a Unitarian Universalist.

The AHA says:

Durman sent a letter to the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) in late August requesting reasonable accommodations on the basis of his “sincerely held beliefs as a Humanist.” After meeting with the OEO in mid September, Durman’s request was approved on September 25, when the OEO determined it posed no undue burden on his department. Durman continues to perform all of his job duties without using AI.

The AHA notes that it helped craft the “Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values.” The first of the ten principles of the declaration states:

AI systems have the potential to empower and assist individuals and societies to achieve more in all aspects of human life. But they must never displace human judgment, human reason, human ethics, or human responsibility for our actions. Decisions that deeply affect people’s lives must always remain in human hands.

As education administrators increasingly promote AI use, one might wonder whether Durman has blazed a trail that others at the university might also take.

UPDATE: In a September column at Psychology Today, Krista K. Thomason (Swarthmore) raises the question: “are employers asking workers to betray their values in using AI tools?”