If you dip your toes into the generative AI debate for even a second, you’ll see this common thread from the “pro camp” — artists, photographers, videographers, musicians, coders and writers should just happily welcome generative AI into their work processes, or use it to replace them entirely, and you’re an idiot if you think otherwise.
Not one of us was sitting around wondering when another Silicon Valley tech-bro would get off his ass to invent a new way for us to while away our time and spend our money.
I agree with everything said here so far. I just retired from teaching English. During the past two years, my admins and colleagues were constantly pushing teachers to use it in our classrooms. I did not comply. My 12 year old students needed to learn to read and write and come with their own ideas. I never let them use ChatGPT and had them read negative articles about AI. The pressure to use AI was a factor in me deciding to retire at 62.
I love the (incorrect) assumption that people, especially younger people, could actually use GenAI to help expand their thought processes, rather than have it do the thinking for them. I know what I would have been like in school/uni - my brain would have turned off.
Critical thinking, hell, even just thinking, is a fundamental skill that should not be automated by an AI.
I've given AI a chance and used it to help research facts and ideas for Louisiana Fishing Blog, a 12 year old niche website about inshore fishing in Louisiana. AI was not helpful at all. It was dead wrong about so many things regarding that niche. It was hilariously bad.
I have beachfront property in Utah to sell to anyone who thinks AI is going to help their creativity. What will really help one's creativity is the ability to go deep. The best creativity will come from those people whose brains haven't been addled by algorithmically curated content, and those people who can focus an inch wide and a mile deep. It will come from those people who practice being bored and take time to synthesize their original thoughts and ideas, rather than copying whatever is trending.
I will naked fight anyone claiming otherwise!! lol jk Hurricane Francine is upon me and I'm stuck indoors and b-o-r-e-d.
Yes. And yes. There are so many ways I object, I could be here all day! I don't want AI built into software in ways that don't allow an opt-out. I don't want to be asked if I want to write my LinkedIn post or text message with AI.
Two points to share, if you've missed my hair-on-fire posts:
1) it is no joke that writers' and artists' work is being stolen. I discovered recently that 3 books and a chapter in another book, including all the original artwork and figures, have been "licensed" to AI. Publisher got $10million, I got $0. And no opt out! See my blog post about it: https://wp.me/peZSGu-bQ.
2) In an effort to take a positive view of the potential for human intelligence, I am offering a special series for Academic Writing Month, known as AcWriMo, on "Celebrate Originality!" My newsletter is and will stay free, but this is a one-month paid subscriber event. Hope you'll join me and explore ways to be more creative and insightful in your scholarly or academic writing.
So much hype to keep the mirage spinning and sprinting (and spending).
I wish you'd mentioned something about the incredible energy demands that AI requires. See this MIT Tech Review article: t.ly/RYSej (though you probably knew this already).
I was going to. I got sent a report that said things like you could charge millions of cars, or power millions a homes per year, for the same power usage. But a bit technical, so just went with the single line callout.
Someone mentioned this Google AI result this week, so I searched for myself and found that they were right. If you Google “How old are people born in 1996,” Google’s AI will tell you, “People born in 1996 are 42 years old.” It can’t even do the basic math that an 8-year-old could do. But we’re all supposed to embrace this revolutionary innovation! I hate the 21st century.
And they want to use this in schools! We are going to have a whole generation of kids who can't think for themselves, and take everything an AI says as gospel. It's going to be their equivalent of "I read it on Facebook so it must be true."
This concerns me greatly. I keep seeing comments around the internet from high school and college teachers who say that their students don’t do any original work anymore. They put all of their assignments through ChatGPT and hand in whatever it spits out. This somehow doesn’t seem to be considered plagiarism, and everyone seems powerless to stop it. At the very least, this homework should receive an F; these kids can stay in high school until they’re 25 if they want to screw around like this. But we seem to be trying to convince ourselves that being able to use ChatGPT is a valuable skill for kids, so it’s all okay. What is the point of school if you come out having learned less than nothing?
May I introduce you to Amy Castor and David Gerard? https://pivot-to-ai.com/ (I'm biased: David has been a dear friend for over 20 years, and his book "Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain" is essential reading for cryptocurrency skeptics.)
I dont know if it is a hype cycle - as mentioned, I am much more concerned about AI. However, I agree with you wholly that it has been born in a way that causes harm, continues to cause harm and is harming us even now while its cheerleaders claim it is a good thing.
Its ridiculous and its is ever more of a need that we need to push back.
I think GenAI is a hype cycle. As to what comes next, Agents and one day AGI, may not be. And it may well be transformative - let's hope in a way that is net-positive to society
I am mostly with you on the sentiment. After all the hype and hoopla, Gen AI still remains a play thing largely. There are many problems with how these companies have trained the models with no respect to creators or owners of content. There is definite regulation required around creation, usage and digital ownership.
However, it's not in the same league as all the crypto and NFT hype. There is something magical and real here and you can see the potential to change the world. We tend to lose track of the magic if we are watching it evolve too closely. After all these months, I introduced my mom to ChatGPT and watching her interact and seeing her eyes light up I realized that what it did almost seemed like magic to her and I got to watch it with the eyes of someone who hasn't been tracking every second of the last 3 years or so. I also believe that a great democratisation of access to information will happen because of it. It is several step changes more accessible and gets info into the hands of people than search even was. It has lots of problems to fix and improvements to be made, sure.
Yeah, it appears magic, on the surface. But that's why it's not a great technology yet. Especially in generations, it's just a mishmash of other people's stuff, bland, or incorrect. I'm not convinced GenAI is going to have any transformative impact.
I'm of the feeling that GenAI isn't the transformative thing, it's just what got people aware of AI. Perhaps what comes in 5, 10, 15 years will be the truly transformative technology.
I do not have a strong rebuttal and you may even be right but having been following and being close to tech for 15 years, my instinct is Gen AI is transformational. And we will have many step changes like you say which will be built on this or adjecent to this. Let's see.
AI is a solution without a problem.
Not one of us was sitting around wondering when another Silicon Valley tech-bro would get off his ass to invent a new way for us to while away our time and spend our money.
I agree with everything said here so far. I just retired from teaching English. During the past two years, my admins and colleagues were constantly pushing teachers to use it in our classrooms. I did not comply. My 12 year old students needed to learn to read and write and come with their own ideas. I never let them use ChatGPT and had them read negative articles about AI. The pressure to use AI was a factor in me deciding to retire at 62.
I love the (incorrect) assumption that people, especially younger people, could actually use GenAI to help expand their thought processes, rather than have it do the thinking for them. I know what I would have been like in school/uni - my brain would have turned off.
Critical thinking, hell, even just thinking, is a fundamental skill that should not be automated by an AI.
Also, that's sad to hear. I know teaching has to move with the times, but you would hope that there would be at least some pushback...
I've given AI a chance and used it to help research facts and ideas for Louisiana Fishing Blog, a 12 year old niche website about inshore fishing in Louisiana. AI was not helpful at all. It was dead wrong about so many things regarding that niche. It was hilariously bad.
I have beachfront property in Utah to sell to anyone who thinks AI is going to help their creativity. What will really help one's creativity is the ability to go deep. The best creativity will come from those people whose brains haven't been addled by algorithmically curated content, and those people who can focus an inch wide and a mile deep. It will come from those people who practice being bored and take time to synthesize their original thoughts and ideas, rather than copying whatever is trending.
I will naked fight anyone claiming otherwise!! lol jk Hurricane Francine is upon me and I'm stuck indoors and b-o-r-e-d.
Thank you for this great piece.
What would really help my creativity is if AI could figure out how to automate my laundry
Yes. And yes. There are so many ways I object, I could be here all day! I don't want AI built into software in ways that don't allow an opt-out. I don't want to be asked if I want to write my LinkedIn post or text message with AI.
Two points to share, if you've missed my hair-on-fire posts:
1) it is no joke that writers' and artists' work is being stolen. I discovered recently that 3 books and a chapter in another book, including all the original artwork and figures, have been "licensed" to AI. Publisher got $10million, I got $0. And no opt out! See my blog post about it: https://wp.me/peZSGu-bQ.
2) In an effort to take a positive view of the potential for human intelligence, I am offering a special series for Academic Writing Month, known as AcWriMo, on "Celebrate Originality!" My newsletter is and will stay free, but this is a one-month paid subscriber event. Hope you'll join me and explore ways to be more creative and insightful in your scholarly or academic writing.
I see more moving towards some kind of 'made by human' movement. I saw the badge project all over Substack. I'm excited for it.
Another scorcher, Stephen. Thanks.
So much hype to keep the mirage spinning and sprinting (and spending).
I wish you'd mentioned something about the incredible energy demands that AI requires. See this MIT Tech Review article: t.ly/RYSej (though you probably knew this already).
I was going to. I got sent a report that said things like you could charge millions of cars, or power millions a homes per year, for the same power usage. But a bit technical, so just went with the single line callout.
Adding this to my reading list though.
Yes! This is a very important discussion that needs to happen as well
I wrote a paper for a client on genai and nothing was as infuriating as reading those chatgpt will change the workd articles.
Someone mentioned this Google AI result this week, so I searched for myself and found that they were right. If you Google “How old are people born in 1996,” Google’s AI will tell you, “People born in 1996 are 42 years old.” It can’t even do the basic math that an 8-year-old could do. But we’re all supposed to embrace this revolutionary innovation! I hate the 21st century.
And they want to use this in schools! We are going to have a whole generation of kids who can't think for themselves, and take everything an AI says as gospel. It's going to be their equivalent of "I read it on Facebook so it must be true."
This concerns me greatly. I keep seeing comments around the internet from high school and college teachers who say that their students don’t do any original work anymore. They put all of their assignments through ChatGPT and hand in whatever it spits out. This somehow doesn’t seem to be considered plagiarism, and everyone seems powerless to stop it. At the very least, this homework should receive an F; these kids can stay in high school until they’re 25 if they want to screw around like this. But we seem to be trying to convince ourselves that being able to use ChatGPT is a valuable skill for kids, so it’s all okay. What is the point of school if you come out having learned less than nothing?
May I introduce you to Amy Castor and David Gerard? https://pivot-to-ai.com/ (I'm biased: David has been a dear friend for over 20 years, and his book "Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain" is essential reading for cryptocurrency skeptics.)
You may. Killer book title!
I dont know if it is a hype cycle - as mentioned, I am much more concerned about AI. However, I agree with you wholly that it has been born in a way that causes harm, continues to cause harm and is harming us even now while its cheerleaders claim it is a good thing.
Its ridiculous and its is ever more of a need that we need to push back.
I think GenAI is a hype cycle. As to what comes next, Agents and one day AGI, may not be. And it may well be transformative - let's hope in a way that is net-positive to society
Agents are already possible and they're based on a core of GenAI, which is LLMs. So I'm not sure if there is much distinction here.
I am mostly with you on the sentiment. After all the hype and hoopla, Gen AI still remains a play thing largely. There are many problems with how these companies have trained the models with no respect to creators or owners of content. There is definite regulation required around creation, usage and digital ownership.
However, it's not in the same league as all the crypto and NFT hype. There is something magical and real here and you can see the potential to change the world. We tend to lose track of the magic if we are watching it evolve too closely. After all these months, I introduced my mom to ChatGPT and watching her interact and seeing her eyes light up I realized that what it did almost seemed like magic to her and I got to watch it with the eyes of someone who hasn't been tracking every second of the last 3 years or so. I also believe that a great democratisation of access to information will happen because of it. It is several step changes more accessible and gets info into the hands of people than search even was. It has lots of problems to fix and improvements to be made, sure.
Yeah, it appears magic, on the surface. But that's why it's not a great technology yet. Especially in generations, it's just a mishmash of other people's stuff, bland, or incorrect. I'm not convinced GenAI is going to have any transformative impact.
I'm of the feeling that GenAI isn't the transformative thing, it's just what got people aware of AI. Perhaps what comes in 5, 10, 15 years will be the truly transformative technology.
I do not have a strong rebuttal and you may even be right but having been following and being close to tech for 15 years, my instinct is Gen AI is transformational. And we will have many step changes like you say which will be built on this or adjecent to this. Let's see.
Prompt engineers. I forgot about that. Would have been another great example to include to the sheer madness going on right now.
Also, if you see '60-80%' of functions replaced, and you're brainwashed, you need to wake up - if that turns out to be true, those jobs are toast.
You should join us with #PauseAI!