Room six
Not a rebuttal room, and not a concern for the other rooms to address. This room holds, with the same seriousness as Nadella's memo or Napier's bond vote, the people and findings that say plainly: this technology, and the companies building it, are not something most people asked for, trust, or benefit from — and that refusing it carries real, documented costs to the people who refuse.
A Montgomery County, Missouri survey, cited in room five
1,461 real responses, 85% opposed to the proposed data center near them — the strongest, most concretely documented opposition figure of any room in this project.
Alex Bores, New York state assemblyman, after losing his primary
AI-industry super PACs spent roughly $23 million for and against him. After the loss: "Some of the richest people on the planet — a handful of oligarchs determined to prevent any check on their power — decided to make an example out of this race... They set out to make people afraid to stand up to them. Instead, they learned just how ready people are to push back."
Dr. Matthew Guariglia, Electronic Frontier Foundation, testifying to Congress, June 4, 2026
"At this level the question is not how do we rein in AI, it's how do we rein in the agencies that would unleash AI on the American public." His written testimony names a real case: an AI error that "sent DHS recruits to the field without proper training."
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, March 24, 2026
Ruling on the Pentagon's attempt to force Anthropic to drop restrictions on military surveillance use, the court found the government's actions "were not designed to protect national security, but rather to punish Anthropic," calling it "classic illegal First Amendment retaliation."
Organized refusal in this story has already cost real money and real political capital to overcome. Does that make refusal a more credible signal of what people actually want — or does it just mean refusal is expensive, with no guarantee either way of who outlasts whom?