Echoes of the Unabomber: Anti-AI Extremism as a New Form of Cyber-Terrorism

by

Jean-michel Newberg

CyJurII Theorist

 on 25 July 2026

Abstract

With the rise and rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI), businesses are now able to augment their production capability or at the very least sustain it while laying off huge percentages of human-based capital. For some individuals, these developments have fostered hostility towards AI technologies and the organizations responsible for their deployment. This insight examines Anti-AI Extremism as a potential new form of cyber-terrorism, and how its motivational roots can be traced to the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski) vis-à-vis his warnings concerning technological dependency, automation, and the concentration of technological power.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; anti-AI extremism; cyber-terrorism; terrorism typology; technological extremism.

1.0  Introduction

Since the public release of generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, the time and effort required to create economic and commercial value have decreased substantially. Organizations have increasingly adopted AI to improve productivity, automate routine tasks, and reduce operational costs. While these developments have generated considerable economic benefits, they have also contributed to significant workforce disruption, particularly within white-collar professions.

According to Goldman Sachs, Generative AI adoption has caused an estimated 16,000 jobs per month, particularly in industries with high AI substitution scores, to be eliminated.[1] Another avenue that is generating grievance due to AI belongs to the upcoming generation of entry level workers. Employment for young workers has been on a 13% decline since 2022 due to AI.[2]

A small but concerning number of individuals have taken their grievance directly to attacking civilians and physical infrastructure that supports generative AI as a way to slow or disrupt the proliferation of AI and its continued optimization for improving (and thereby causing layoffs to more people in fields currently not disrupted by generative AI).

The following examples have occurred in the recent months of 2026:

-            April 2026: 20-year-old Daniel Moreno-Gama threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman’s home, the CEO of OpenAI which hosts ChatGPT. Moreno-Gama then drove a few miles to OpenAI headquarters and attempted to break in, saying he was going to burn the place down and kill anyone inside.[3]

 -            May 2026: Two teenagers, Caleb Vazquez and Cain Clark, killed three people at the Islamic Center of San Diego before killing themselves. The manifesto they left behind referenced anti-technology ideology, even going so far as to revere Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and the Unabomber’s manifesto. Clark’s portion of the manifesto specifies for “sabotage of the industrial complex”.[4]

 -            April 2026: An Indiana politician had 13 gunshots fired into his home along with a note left on his front doorstep that read “No Data Centers”.[5]

 2.0 A New Form of Cyber-Terrorism?

Cyber-terrorism is commonly understood as using computer technology in some way to commit acts of terrorism. While that perspective can be valid, many typologies of terrorism recognized in an academic and judicial sense focus on the motive-based typology or the “Why” of the terrorism act.[6]

Under a motivation-based cyber-terrorism typology, neither a cyber-based threat actor nor target needs to be involved, only the ideology of the threat-actor needs to possess cyber motivations and the use of a cyber-physical system that can be weaponized to cause physical, kinetic damage.

 A potential terrorism act is cyber-terrorism only if all conditions are satisfied:

-            Must be an intentional act.

-            Must threaten or enact physical violence against civilians (or civilian targets such as critical infrastructure).

-            Must be to achieve a political goal.

-            Must use computer technology that possesses the ability to cause physical harm.[7]

 3.0 Anti-AI Extremism as an Extension of Anti-Technology Ideology

 The ideological foundations of motivation-based cyber-terrorism can be traced, in part, to Theodore Kaczynski’s 1995 manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future. Although written decades before the emergence of generative AI, many of its themes closely resemble contemporary concerns regarding automation, technological dependence, and the concentration of technological power.

 Several recurring themes are particularly relevant to contemporary anti-AI extremism:

 3.1  Dependency on AI as an extension of a dependency of a unified system:

As generative AI develops more and takes over more occupations, human society will depend more on AI:

“Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus, the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization.” [8]

3.2  Fear of AI Machine Supremacy:

 In “the future” section of his manifesto, the Unabomber theorizes possible futures with respect to intelligent machines. Kaczynski speculated that computers might eventually surpass humans in nearly every intellectual task, resulting in increasing reliance upon machine decision-making and diminishing human autonomy:

“First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones.”[9]

3.3 Concentration of Technological Power into the Elite

Kaczynski further argued that technological advancement would increasingly concentrate political and economic power within a small elite while rendering much of humanity economically unnecessary. This concern similarly appears within contemporary anti-AI discourse, particularly among individuals who believe that AI will disproportionately benefit governments and large technology corporations while displacing substantial numbers of workers:

“On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite.”[10]

 4.0 Conclusion

Do the examples discussed constitute cyber-terrorism?

At present, the answer is no.

Although these incidents arguably satisfy the first three elements of a motivation-based cyber-terrorism framework, namely intentional conduct, violence directed at civilians or civilian infrastructure, and an ideological or political objective—they do not involve the use of a cyber-enabled kinetic weapon, which remains an essential component of the proposed typology.

However, this does not necessarily mean that these acts cannot be classified as some other form of terrorism. For example: US attorney Craig Missakian for the Moreno-Gama incident said: “If the evidence shows that Mr. Moreno-Gama executed these attacks to change public policy or to coerce government and other officials, we will treat this as an act of domestic terrorism.”[11]

Conversely, attacks already conducted by state actors may satisfy all four elements of the proposed framework. For example, reported drone strikes targeting Amazon Web Services data centers during the Iran conflict illustrate how cyber-enabled systems supporting AI infrastructure may become legitimate strategic targets during armed conflict.[12]

Finally, it is important to note that anti-ai extremism can very easily qualify as cyber-terrorism in the future if a threat actor decides to use a cyber-based system with destructive kinetic potential, such as a drone. The “ingredients” for cyber-terrorism by way of a motive-based terrorism typology using anti-AI extremism are currently in play, but the “mixture” has yet to be concocted.

End Notes:

[1] The Jobs AI Is Likely to Boost—and Those It May Disrupt. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/the-jobs-ai-is-likely-to-boost-and-those-it-may-disrupt. Accessed 20 July 2026.

[2] Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B., & Chen, R. (2025). Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence. Stanford Digital Economy Lab. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in-the-coal-mine/

[3]  Robins-Early, Nick. “How a Fiery Attack on Sam Altman’s Home Unfolded.” The Guardian, 18 Apr. 2026. Technology. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/18/sam-altman-house-attack-ai.

[4] Vazquez, Caleb, and Cain Clark. “The New Crusade: A Sons of Tarrant Debut Manifesto.” May 2026, https://rairfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/velasquez-clark-manifesto.pdf.

[5] Indianapolis Councilman Says Shots Fired at Home and “No Data Centers” Note Left at Door. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/indianapolis-councilman-says-shots-fired-at-home-and-no-data-centers-note-left-at-door. Accessed 20 July 2026.

[6] International Center for Counter-Terrorism and Schmidt AP, ‘Defining Terrorism’ (ICCT 2023) <https://doi.org/10.19165/2023.3.01> accessed 19 July 2026

[7] Newberg. CyJurII - Cyber-Terrorism: Exploration of Typology for Jurisprudence. https://www.cyjurii.org/blogs/cyjurii-insights/cyber-terrorism-exploration-of-typology-for-jurisprudence. Accessed 20 July 2026.

[8] Kaczynski TJ, ‘Industrial Society and Its Future’ (1995)

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Robins-Early (n 3)

[12] Montgomery, Blake. “Datacenters Are Becoming a Target in Warfare for the First Time.” The Guardian, 10 Mar. 2026. Technology. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/10/datacenters-target-warfare-iran.