A lot of the problems go hand in hand with David Graeber’s “bullshit jobs.” When people give examples of how AI helped them write something, it’s almost always something that if you’re really looking at things from an anti-capitalist or at least skeptical-capitalist lens, doesn’t really need to exist in the first place. Like I worked trail crew with a real estate agent who uses it now for all his property descriptions. Okay. But if we’re looking for a world that’s just and good and whole, the buying and selling of property and descriptions for that purpose is something I’d question in the first place. Mission statements are another example. For more creative work, I don’t really understand why anyone would *want* to use it. Creativity is by nature messy and inefficient and painful and joyful. Why do it at all if you don’t love the process?
Not to mention the energy use. Every time someone uses AI to, say, generate an image, it used as much energy as charging a phone. Scaled up, it’s staggering. But that’s true of the digital world across the board, not something people consider often enough.
Thank you for contributing to clearing the Luddites’ good name! They fought for a better world and deserve recognition for that. 🫶
Also your point about “how do you know it’s conveying what you intend?” is a good one. I actually foresee my copy editing work increasing due to exactly this problem.
I think one of the most important points you implicitly made was that when you re counted your process, you noted what each person contributed. AI does not do that. Antonia's point about how much energy is used to generate a piece is something I hadn't thought about. (Being me I will have to check her facts be fore I quote them). I do use some AI to help me write (spell check and Grammarly, the free version) but I always reread my text to see if the suggestions correctly convey my thoughts. Sometimes the suggestions don't, so I ignore them, even if the sentence is long.
As far as the rest of AI, I don't even know where to start on using it, because like you, I can communicate effectively enough to ignore it. So I will continue to live in my advance AI ignorance, taking forever to write my own words.
Once again, thanks for making me think in the morning.
I'm going to make a confession: I see clearly the ethical problems of AI (such as the theft of the content used to make it), the impending tectonic social shifts that it is going to cause (similar to how mechanical farming and the rest of the IR urbanized everyone)...... and I went from using it casually to see what it can do and generate some laughs, to now using it constantly to help me build spreadsheets at work. I don't know what to say. I apologize to all of the 1999-2022 Excel Tips blogs that unwittingly trained this thing.
Also, I've had some of the most interesting conversations about literature with it. I was muddling through the Iliad last year, when ChatGPT 3 was released, and it really helped me process some thoughts and questions I had. Should I have searched for human writing about it? Found some books to scan or internet articles to read? Or, better yet, tried to find someone in Billings to talk to in person, and make a friend? Any one of those probably would have been better socially and ethically.
I don't say this to take any position, or say your friends are right and you are wrong, or anything at all, other than to share that experience. We live in a weird world.
I love the emphasis on humanity. Attention can be an act of intention: I did not use AI to respond to you, I took the time to think about what I wanted to say because you deserve intentionality. I can see the importance of signing off emails with the "No AI" disclaimer, especially as a teacher (such a human profession!)
A lot of the problems go hand in hand with David Graeber’s “bullshit jobs.” When people give examples of how AI helped them write something, it’s almost always something that if you’re really looking at things from an anti-capitalist or at least skeptical-capitalist lens, doesn’t really need to exist in the first place. Like I worked trail crew with a real estate agent who uses it now for all his property descriptions. Okay. But if we’re looking for a world that’s just and good and whole, the buying and selling of property and descriptions for that purpose is something I’d question in the first place. Mission statements are another example. For more creative work, I don’t really understand why anyone would *want* to use it. Creativity is by nature messy and inefficient and painful and joyful. Why do it at all if you don’t love the process?
Not to mention the energy use. Every time someone uses AI to, say, generate an image, it used as much energy as charging a phone. Scaled up, it’s staggering. But that’s true of the digital world across the board, not something people consider often enough.
Thank you for contributing to clearing the Luddites’ good name! They fought for a better world and deserve recognition for that. 🫶
Also your point about “how do you know it’s conveying what you intend?” is a good one. I actually foresee my copy editing work increasing due to exactly this problem.
I think one of the most important points you implicitly made was that when you re counted your process, you noted what each person contributed. AI does not do that. Antonia's point about how much energy is used to generate a piece is something I hadn't thought about. (Being me I will have to check her facts be fore I quote them). I do use some AI to help me write (spell check and Grammarly, the free version) but I always reread my text to see if the suggestions correctly convey my thoughts. Sometimes the suggestions don't, so I ignore them, even if the sentence is long.
As far as the rest of AI, I don't even know where to start on using it, because like you, I can communicate effectively enough to ignore it. So I will continue to live in my advance AI ignorance, taking forever to write my own words.
Once again, thanks for making me think in the morning.
MIT Technology Review wrote about the study of AI image generator energy use here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-an-image-with-generative-ai-uses-as-much-energy-as-charging-your-phone/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy6uGztT9ggMVUiutBh3R_wsTEAAYASAAEgIaUPD_BwE
Ha! I looked it up after I posted and read the article. Thanks for citing your source.
I probably should have originally but appreciate you asking!
I'm going to make a confession: I see clearly the ethical problems of AI (such as the theft of the content used to make it), the impending tectonic social shifts that it is going to cause (similar to how mechanical farming and the rest of the IR urbanized everyone)...... and I went from using it casually to see what it can do and generate some laughs, to now using it constantly to help me build spreadsheets at work. I don't know what to say. I apologize to all of the 1999-2022 Excel Tips blogs that unwittingly trained this thing.
Also, I've had some of the most interesting conversations about literature with it. I was muddling through the Iliad last year, when ChatGPT 3 was released, and it really helped me process some thoughts and questions I had. Should I have searched for human writing about it? Found some books to scan or internet articles to read? Or, better yet, tried to find someone in Billings to talk to in person, and make a friend? Any one of those probably would have been better socially and ethically.
I don't say this to take any position, or say your friends are right and you are wrong, or anything at all, other than to share that experience. We live in a weird world.
I agree with your take.
No AI was used to create this comment.
I love the emphasis on humanity. Attention can be an act of intention: I did not use AI to respond to you, I took the time to think about what I wanted to say because you deserve intentionality. I can see the importance of signing off emails with the "No AI" disclaimer, especially as a teacher (such a human profession!)