Just a little AI resistance, as a treat

After hearing about the AI Resist List at EMFCamp, the writer argues that customers should speak up when businesses use AI in ways that feel dismissive. While reporting a problem with malformed calendar invitations to Ocado, they submitted a detailed technical explanation through the supermarket’s general feedback form, since no clear route to its technical team was available. The reply, signed by “Lulu,” agreed smoothly with the complaint and promised to pass it on. Its formulaic tone, flattering agreement and polished punctuation led the writer to suspect it was AI-generated - and to doubt that anyone qualified had considered the bug.

A customer survey gave the writer a chance to register that frustration, and they gave the service low ratings while objecting to an apparent automated response to a genuine problem. A few days later, someone followed up, apologised for the robotic message, praised the diagnostic details and assured the writer that a real person was responding and the issue had gone to the relevant team. This reply felt more engaged, though the writer offers no proof of how either message was produced. They accept that AI may help staff sort, summarise and analyse customer feedback, but argue that using it to answer people directly communicates that the company values its time more than theirs. The practical point is to call out poor AI responses and ask for human attention.