“Writing this book made me angry. I hope that reading it made you feel angry, too. Because without shock and rage I can’t see how we are going to shift our complacent beliefs about technology, big-tech companies and governments significantly enough to prevent irreparable harms. Most people like to believe that things gradually get better over time. That progress might benefit tech billionaires first, but if we’re patient then those benefits will eventually filter down to the rest of us as well. But that simply isn’t true.”

laura bates’ the new age of sexism is a rigorous and gut-churning excavation of new technologies, and how they disproportionally, and most of the time, intentionally, harm women and marginalised people. if for nothing else, bates must be recognised for the immensity and intensity of her research; bates discusses being a victim of sexual assault herself, and i can only imagine how deeply triggering writing and researching parts of this book must have been for her. but, of course, the successes of the new age of sexism do not stop there. i really and truly do believe that bates’ work, if it reaches the right people (and we must all be proactive in this, too), can be vital in reforming lax and dismissive attitudes towards the damage caused by new technologies, and in amplifying the voice for reform and regulation:

“We must be ruthless and tireless in pursuit of a higher standard.”

unfortunately, this is also where my primary issue lies. i so sincerely wish that i could just champion this book as the rich and powerful vehicle for change that it so rightly is, but there is one glaring omission from bates’ book that i feel could have made a real, life-affirming impact. while bates spends this entire book discussing the disgracefully negative impacts that emerging technologies have on marginalised communities, she neglects to condemn the devastating environmental impacts caused by the brazen use of generative AI. when bates calls for regulation on AI, it is never within the context of or acknowledging the real world destruction that is currently occurring in the most at-risk communities. she even references using chatGPT in one instance in the research of this book, despite discussing, on multiple occasions, the rampant inaccuracies and biases of LLMs.

i struggle to understand how bates, who has been so selfless and so incredibly committed in researching the content of this book, particularly in giving voice to the global majority, fails to align herself with the same global majority that are and will continue to be the first to suffer because of the environmental damage caused by generative AI. this both sides argument only comes around three-quarters of the way into the book, which only cements the question further as to why it is included in the first place. anyone who has got far enough into bates’ book to read her middle-of-the-road argument is at the very least going to hear out an argument as to why AI must be regulated in a more radical, multi-dimensional front, taking into account both gender-based violence and environmental harm, and the threat to artists. we, i really believe, can do this. laura bates can do this.