Atheist wins “religious exemption” to get out of using AI at work

David Durman used a religious accommodation law to protect his conscience and his ability to do his job without generative AI

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 26,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.

---

It’s not often you hear a positive story involving a “religious accommodation,” but this is one of them.

Normally, we hear stories of Christians refusing to work on certain days, get vaccinated, or use someone’s pronouns. Those wishes are often granted because religion, these days, is basically a catch-all term that lets you get away with anything. Title VII prohibits religious discrimination, and this administration and its judges have gone against companies who deny such requests.

An atheist is now using that power in a way I’ve never seen before.

Man using computer (image via Adobe Spark)

According to the American Humanist Association, David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky, requested an exemption from using AI at work. It’s not that he ever has to use it, but as tools like ChatGPT become more pervasive, he’s worried that it may become an expectation. So he asked for the exemption this past August before those problems arose. And because that request wasn’t going to change his own output or prevent anyone else from using AI tools, the university said yes.

He explained his reasoning to the AHA:

“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,” said David Durman. “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.”

While this sounds like a unique situation, it’s not the first time this has happened. In fact, Durman told Religion News Service that he was inspired by someone else who did the same thing:

His accommodation request was inspired in part by Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist software engineer who made headlines after receiving an exemption from her employer because of her religious concerns about AI.

After hearing about Maus’ case, Durman reached out to the American Humanist Association for help in requesting an accommodation of his own.

AHA staff attorney Alexandria Huiskens helped him draft a letter, and there didn’t seem to be any pushback from the university. They granted his request a month later after a meeting with Durman and Huiskens. The school agreed that he wouldn’t be forced to use AI as long as he got his work done—though he would still have to work with colleagues who may use it. So while this is a story about a religious accommodation, it’s also one about making sure AI isn’t thrust upon us against our will.

In a way, the AHA’s Communications Director Court Beyer told me, this case resembles the sort of conscientious objections seen in wartime.

I suspect we’ll hear this kind of anti-AI excuse a lot more in the future. After all, it’s not far-fetched for a religious person to say God created their brains to be used, and AI interferes with that. RNS notes the Catholic Church has made that exact argument: “Pope Leo warned that AI could weaken democracy and human dignity.”

Yet here’s a secular case against AI. The AHA even cited its own Humanist Manifesto from 2003—which mentions the importance of freedom of conscience—and how it signed onto the Luxembourg Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values.

There may be critics out there who wonder how big of a deal this really is. Legally speaking, there’s no real controversy. But philosophically, it’s huge. A lot of employers are treating AI as inevitable and efficient—even harmless. At what cost, though? For people who thrive on using their creativity, AI represents a real threat. That’s before we even consider the privacy and energy use concerns. If people can do their jobs without AI, forcing them to use it isn’t progress but that seems to be where we’re heading. Better to make this argument now than wait for the problem to fester.

It’s also worth mentioning that Durman is helping define Humanism. Contrary to the way so many conservative Christians describe it, it’s not just a lack of belief. It’s a commitment to human well-being and self conscience. You don’t need a Catholic encyclical to make a case against AI. You can also do it using a secular belief that our minds, our work, and our ability to reason are worth protecting.

---