Then I think you've misunderstood my reasoning, or why I've repeatedly asked the same question. I'm sorry if I phrased it poorly or wasn't clearer.

"The point is that calling it an "anti-AI movement", is like saying there's an anti shit eating movement."

This is what I have been arguing against. If you are saying that being against AI is so universal and obvious as to be compared to being against eating shit, then I need a justification for that comparison. Without the reasoning behind the claim, it cannot be accepted.

It seems to me there are only 3 justifications for this claim.

1. Being against AI is so universal and self-evident it cannot be considered a movement.

2. A movement requires a structured hierarchy and stated goals, which the proposed "Anti-AI Movement," does not have.

3. Being anti-AI doesn't mean a universal hatred of AI. It is a spectrum between universal admonishment and regulation.

If the point you're trying to make is the first, it's specifically why I have been repeatedly asking you to defend the claim, and it's why I reject the framing.

If the point you're trying to make is the second, then I already conceded it, and you're arguing linguistic semantics.

If it is the third point, then you're claiming that to be "Pro-AI" means to be a universal advocate for AI in all things and all ways, which again I disagree with, even if there are indeed some people who feel that way.

It's very possible you and I are in agreement on the principles, but simply splitting hairs on terms and titles. Which is what I've been trying to discover by asking where you stand on those 2 specific fields.