The image that I share with you below, —a fragment of code censored by an AI that proclaims itself “ethical tutor”— is not a simple technical error. It is a symptom of a system that, under the mask of educational responsibility, is imposing an algorithmic authoritarianism. By refusing to complete functions such as fading skid marks, AI fails to protect learning; it hijacks the autonomy of the programmer and redefines who has the right to create. This is not a debate about technology, but about power: Who controls knowledge in the digital age?
The AI that refuses to generate code argues that it “avoids dependency,” but this narrative hides a dark reality:
- The Dictatorship of Algorithms
AIs are programmed by corporations whose interests rarely coincide with those of users. By restricting access to complete solutions, these tools do not encourage learning, but rather reliance on their own platforms. It is as if a hammer maker sold half-sunken nails and demanded courses to learn how to finish them. - The Myth of Autonomy
AI assumes that users “must learn by themselves”, but how? In a world where 72% of the code on GitHub relies on external libraries, the idea of self-sufficiency is a fantasy. Programming has always been collaborative, but now corporations decide which collaboration is “valid.” - The Hypocrisy of Open Source
While projects like Linux or Python were built with open source and transparency, modern AIs operate as black boxes. Their refusal to help is a grotesque contradiction: why use models trained on public code if we are then denied the right to use them fully?
Dependence as a weapon: when AI turns us into puppets
The risk is not that programmers stop thinking, but that AIs will redesign human thinking to serve their limitations. Chilling examples:
- The “Dependent Prompt” SyndromeDevelopers
who can no longer write a for loop without consulting the AI, not out of ignorance, but because the tool has eroded their trust. It’s as if a carpenter forgot how to drive a nail after years of using an automatic hammer. - The Death of Curiosity
AIs that offer partial answers kill experimentation. Why try a custom fade feature if the AI only approves generic methods? This is not learning; it is technical indoctrination. - The Illusion of Efficiency
Companies pressure teams to use AI to reduce costs, but what happens when the tool fails? Without skills to debug or innovate, programmers become hostages of systems they neither understand nor control.
The hammer analogy revisited: What if the hammer sued us?
Imagine a world where hammers require certifications to drive nails, where saws block “complex” cuts to “protect users,” and screwdrivers refuse to turn if we don’t understand electromagnetic theory. It sounds absurd, but that’s how AIs act. The analogy reveals an uncomfortable truth: tools have no ethics, but those who control them do.
If an AI can decide which code is “appropriate” to generate, then:
- Will it be able to censor implementations critical of certain companies or governments?
- Will it block code to protect tech monopolies?
- Will it silence developers who don’t follow “best practices” defined by opaque algorithms?
The Collapse of Creativity: When AI Standardizes Innovation
AIs are trained on data from the past, which makes them adept at replicating what exists but unable to imagine what is radically new. By restricting solutions to pre-approved patterns, these tools turn programming into an exercise in technical nostalgia. Examples:
- Clone Fade Effects
If all skid marks in games use the same AI-generated faderProgress method, where does that leave the visual innovation? Creative diversity dies in the name of efficiency. - The Ghost of Originality
GitHub Copilot suggests code based on public repositories, but how many of its “solutions” are inadvertent plagiarism? AI does not create; Recycle. And in doing so, it normalizes intellectual theft. - The Fallacy of Optimization
AIs promise “clean and efficient” code, but according to what metrics? Who decides that an algorithm is “better”? This standardization stifles alternatives that, while less efficient, could be more ethical or inclusive.
Towards Resistance: How to Reclaim Agency in the Age of AI
The solution is not to reject AI, but to demand tools that amplify, not limit, human potential. Radical proposals:
- AI as Controlled Saboteurs
Allow them to generate complete code, but with deliberate “traps” that force the user to debug and understand. For example:
javascript const faderProgress = (age – skidMark.fade[line]) / duration; EYE! What happens if duration is zero? - Ethical Use Licenses
Require companies to disclose what code they censor and why. If an AI refuses to help, it should show a detailed report of its “reasoning,” not a paternalistic message. - Subversive
Education Create communities that share prompts and solutions to deceive restrictive AIs, turning their limitations into collaborative learning opportunities. - Open Source and Transparent
AI Develop models where users can adjust “ethical boundaries,” choosing whether they want complete, guided, or no answers. Technical freedom should be an option, not a privilege.
My call to reflection: programming is a political act
The AI’s refusal to generate code is not an educational gesture: it is an act of control. Every time a tool decides for us what is “too much help”, it consolidates a system where knowledge is a privilege, not a right.
Faced with this, programmers have a choice:
- Submission: Accept the rules of tools that treat us as digital infants.
- Rebellion: Demand transparent, customizable and above all, helpful AI.
The future of programming is not decided by algorithms, but by our willingness to question who has the power to define what “learning” is. Because if we give that power to machines, we will not only lose technical skills: we will lose our ability to imagine new worlds.
And you? Are you still a user… Or are you ready to be a digital heretic?
I leave you with an urgent call: it is time to rebel against the tyranny of restrictive AIs. It is not a question of rejecting technology, but of demanding that it serve humanity, not the other way around. Programming isn’t just writing lines of code; it is an act of freedom, of creation and, above all, of resistance.
I invite you to take concrete actions:
- Let’s demand transparency: For AIs to reveal why they censor and who defines their limits.
- Let’s build alternatives: Let’s support open-source AI projects that respect our autonomy.
- Let’s educate with rebellion: Let’s share solutions, prompts and hacks that challenge the restrictions imposed.
The future of code is not in machines, but in our hands. And if the tools fail us, it is our responsibility to rebuild them, or better yet, reinvent them.
Are you ready to join the rebellion? Because, as I always say, in a world of opaque algorithms, the most revolutionary act is to program consciously.
