I know my opinions on generative AI are not popular ones, and that's why I really struggle to write about them. I know that, no matter how carefully and thoughtfully I frame them, someone is going to be mad. It's such a touchy subject, but it's also one I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing... and rewriting about. I decided that I just need to suck it up and just be okay with the inevitable backlash I'm going to get for sharing them. So, here goes...

I believe that generative AI is a genuinely useful and potentially beneficial technology that has been implemented in a way that can only be described as completely ass-backwards. The problem actually isn't the product itself, it's how that product came to be and how is now used. It was introduced to the general public without the necessary regulations to limit the damage it has inflicted and will continue to inflict on society and the planet.

I feel like most people are aware of this, but with the way conversations about gen AI tend to go, it's hard to believe. The moment you express anything other than unambiguous hostility or praise towards it, you're socially profiled and possibly even pariahed. You become a "tech bro shill" or a Luddite, you have "skill issues" or you're "wasting so much time", you're someone who doesn't care about artists or the environment or someone who cares too much (because ~empathy is a weakness~), or you are "part of the problem", whatever they think the problem actually is.

The Overton window of views on gen AI has essentially collapsed into itself. Anyone trying to occupy the space between "AI is bad and you shouldn't use it at all" and "AI will save the world and we should all be using it for everything" gets crushed under the weight of moral absolutism or unrestrained stupidity. In the end, the only people left discussing it are just engaging in a pointless battle of hyperbole that solves absolutely nothing.

It just feels like an immense amount of energy is being wasted on going after personal, individual decisions about gen AI use when the real problem lays directly at the feet of the companies and governments that aren't doing what needs to be done to make gen AI something that everyone can feel comfortable about existing¹ and using whenever it makes sense for them. That may be always, that may be never, but if properly regulated, it won't matter.

We're so unwilling to consider others when forming our views that we end up ignoring the human cost. There's the obvious stuff we always hear about like AI stealing from and then replacing artists, the impact on the environment, and the threat of AI, as a result of being trained with everything humanity has to offer, becoming just as human and turning on us. As dramatic as that sounds. But what about the other stuff we seem to conveniently ignore?

We should be more aware of the social psychology behind the effect our strong reaction to something has on others. It seems as though some people think they can affect change by being straight up bullies, but shame tends to trigger defensiveness before it triggers reflection. The priority stops being "am I doing the right thing?" and becomes "how do I justify what I'm doing?". Some will even dig their heels in and increase doing or not doing the thing.

There is an overreliance on the "If I can do it, anyone can do it!" point of view. I know it's difficult to see things from perspectives that aren't your own, but your ability do something without the assistance of AI has no bearing on whether someone else has that same ability. You have no idea what combination of factors exist(ed) in someone's life to impact their ability to do or not do something you also can or cannot do.

If the technology exists to allow people who previously couldn't participate in an aspect of society they'd always wanted to, they should feel free to use it². In fact, it's pretty fucking ableist to deny them the opportunity and rather icky when coming from a group of folk you would assume would be advocates for the disabled. I know it depends on what you consider to be more important ethically, but the disabled are a recognised minority group. In case you needed reminding.

And yes, you can argue that not everyone using gen AI is disabled in any way. Some of them are just lazy, wilfully ignorant, spiteful, etc. You're not wrong. But also, what if you are? Why are you out here being an asshole to people you don't even know because of a personal choice you've made not to participate in something you should be angry at the people who made it and their enablers instead? It's weird. You're being weird. Think about it.

I didn't mean to pick on the anti-AI crowd so much here, but we already know why AI is bad. It's just that those things can be externally regulated. Laws can be put into place, we can incentivise alternative energy options³, and we can teach responsible use. But it's not quite as easy to make people realise they're being douchebags when they're so blinded by their righteousness and potentially causing more of the thing they hate to occur.

Instead of immediately being nasty or condescending, maybe offer your assistance. Be the LLM you want to see in the world or some shit. If someone asks a question, answer it before the "Just ask ChatGPT, bro!" crowd get to them. Point people in the direction of resources for the things they're (considering) using AI for. And just ignore those who are obviously deliberately trying to bait you. You'll never win against them.

For those of you who are big time pro-AI but potentially willing to take in a little reason, you can't prompt when you're dead. At least, not until they figure out how to put your brain in a jar. Fun fact: water is essential for survival and you should know that even without Chat's input. So like, maybe save some for your body so you can live to prompt something more important another day?