Pondering Generative AI - Paths to Adventure

"There are many fact-based logical reasons to be against generative AI and LLM-based business models . None of them are as dangerous or detrimental to society as the potential of surrendering our cognitive skills and critical thought in return for convenience and expedience." 
 — Justin Andrew Mason

The purpose of this post is to express my personal perspectives regarding generative AI and LLMs, and expand on why I maintain an anti-AI stance.

Rather than bantering on about the typical narratives that inundate topical discourse regarding debates on the topic (creative rights, copyright law, job loss, environmental impact, etc.), I’m going to forego those valid arguments to make a post focused on my own observations.

While keeping an eye on the AI industry (and tech industry at large), social trends, and common vernacular as it becomes established in day-to-day communications, I’ve come to a conclusion:

I suspect that the primary drive behind corporations pushing consumer-facing generative AI is more about mitigating critical thinking than improving productivity. That influence is what is worth the breathtaking volumes of wealth being expended by the billionaires and corporations who are funneling unprecedented investments in the technology.

The bells and whistles and flashy lights are low hanging fruit; the bait to establish gradual acceptance and integration among the masses. Or, as advocates of generative AI so frequently parrot, “Generative AI is inevitable. Embrace it or be left behind.” That’s not innovation, that’s not progress, that’s coercion.

What benefits corporations and billionaire investors more than a complacent populace who have stopped thinking for themselves, and instead choose the convenience of proprietary technology to think for them? The curated effect of this “let us tell you what to think” initiative can already be demonstrated in the way that generative AI has been integrated into the casual research process.

Being your image/video/music “generation buddy” has never made sense in the balance of the huge investments being funneled into this technology. A technology that is inherently paired with exuberant operational cost (even at moderate scale).

Ask yourself, “What’s the end game?” What’s the value returned for the investment and sustained operational costs? Where’s the profit?

I don’t believe for a moment that it’s some sort of sudden altruistic shift in capitalist mentality. The bold claims of making a “better world” are stage dressing. Rather, it’s very much rooted in ROI: investing trillions of dollars to gain a daily, constant, unavoidable influence upon the population’s perspectives.

A gateway to influencing social perception, policy, and trends to their benefit (and the benefit of their shareholders) is the sort investment corporations are more than eager to buy into. In recent decades, it has become one of the largest areas of investment by corporations.

Not that this should be misread as suggesting some conspiratorial centralized cabal seeking control, but rather as a factual reflection of how corporations function. The fear of losing market share to competitors or becoming obsolete outweighs any other consideration and bolsters greed-fueled drive for dominance. This is true whether one is talking about a software suite or bags of chips, but in this case we’re talking about cognition. This is a shift from exploiting resources for profit to harvesting individual and cultural identity.

Developers are clambering all over the place to cram generative AI into virtually anything and everything… even when it makes no practical sense.

It seems obvious to me that they are working towards building a dependence upon the technology; to make it more convenient and comfortable for everyone to acquiesce to the presence of generative AI in every facet of daily life. Normalizing their own market ecosystems is exactly what corporations strive for.

Whoever controls the algorithm controls the people who live by it, and proliferation is power. This is a lesson well learned and demonstrated in practice by corporations including Google and Meta, where intentional shifts in content distribution have demonstrably affected customer perspective. It would be foolish not to expect the same goals when it comes to a technology that has been integrated into everyday life.

By making part of that integration “fun and engaging” they don’t even need walk that mile… generative AI markets itself. Many people will willingly choose to defend and promote generative AI because it provides them with something they want: a proverbial instant gratification machine. A sense of accomplishment devoid of effort to earn it.

The prevailing tone: Don’t do that research, let us do it for you. Don’t work to find a solution, let us solve it for you. Don’t worry about engineering, we’ll provide the solution. Don’t bother with working on that problem, we’ll provide you with the answer. Don’t read that lesson, here’s all you need to pass the class. Don’t dig for the truth, we’ll tell you what you want to hear. Don’t put forth the effort to learn a creative skill, we’ll generate content for you…. so on and so forth: don’t think, just listen.

I don’t intend to write often about this topic (though I do often discuss it in comments social media), but watching the droves of people recently hand over their personal information and identities to generative AI companies to make caricatures of themselves as part of a social trend just really resonated with an uncomfortable vibe for me. It prompted me to write this article and clarify my stance against generative AI.

There are many fact-based logical reasons to be against generative AI and LLM-based business models. None of them are as dangerous or detrimental to society as the potential of surrendering our cognitive skills and critical thought in return for convenience and expedience. I promise, this doesn’t end well for any of us if the path continues to be followed.

This is an article from Justin’s Personal Web Journal.

Further Reading…