Ideally, I want every post I make on here to be deep and well thought out. Currently I have like 3 or 4 ideas floating around for post ideas to make on here. The issue I keep running into is that for every topic I come up with, I load myself with hours and hours of research. If I am going to take the time and effort to write one of these things, I want it not only to be something I'm proud of, but reasonably correct too. That being said, this is not one of those posts. I am writing this on a whim without any planning.
I don't like generative AI. It can be useful, sure, in a handful of cases maybe, but the vast majority of use cases which generative AI has been applied to are wholly unjustified. I am going to focus on the two that are most relevant to me right now.
Arguably the most prevalent use case of generative AI has been in the field of software engineering. More than any other field, software engineers have, for whatever reason, come to embrace generative AI, some to a more extreme degree than others. As I've said, I understand its limited use as a bloated search engine, which I've occasionally used ChatGPT for in the rare cases where I am left with seemingly no other choice after hours of debugging. However, the plague which has infected others in the field is the trend of allowing generative AI to complete overtake their role as a programmer. Rather than using AI to generate a limited amount of code, some people had the bright idea to let AI generate their entire code base, usually to laughably horrible results. Programs like Cursor, which integrate AI directly into the text editor, have gained notable popularity recently, which serves as evidence of this trend. Besides that example, many other popular code editors now have at least some built-in functionality for generative AI.
I think this is just an extension of a more broader trend among programmers to eliminate as much thinking from their jobs as possible. Considering programming languages, this has always been the case. Programming language have evolved over time to remove complexity and lower the barrier of entry, allowing more code to be written at a faster pace and removing the necessity of having to worry about low level implementation details such as memory management and whatnot. In this case, however, the product has universally been slower and shittier software written in languages which weren't designed for that given task. Nowadays every desktop application is written in ReactJS or some equivalent, and the predictable result is that everything requires an exorbitant amount of resources to run. But hey, at least it was easy to develop, right?
The overuse of AI in software development will only result in code bases which are nonsensical and unmaintainable. You cannot call yourself a software engineer if you don't understand how the program you are writing functions, and generating code using AI undoubtedly has this effect. The newest generation of programmers are on track to become clueless obstacles who are incapable of any critical thinking. They don't understand the consequences of relying on AI because they lack the experience to know what they don't understand. If you've never written any real code before, and have only ever done the most basic of homework assignments for class (which they've done entirely using AI anyways), you cannot comprehend the limit of the technology that you are working with. They will inevitability hit a brick wall for which they lack to brainpower to overcome.
The other controversial use case of generative AI has been in creating "art", which I put in quotes because the garbage produced by these programs are hardly deserving of that word. Art is defined by its intention, the meaning which is attached to it. Art is a means of expression. Oscar Wilde, in the preface to "The Picture of Dorian Gray", states that art should be created as reflection of the artist.
Now, imagine the type of person who would be proud of "creating" AI generated artwork; to pass off something created by a machine as their own. To even take appreciation of AI generated artwork suggests that you lack an understand of what makes art interesting in the first place. Humans are, arguably, uniquely defined by our creative capacity. To think that something a computer created arbitrarily ought to be judged relative to anything human made is ridiculous in my opinion. Even bad art is still deserving of more respect, since it was at least created in ambition with some amount of ingenuity. The same people who pride themselves in AI generative ""art"" are the same people who think taking a shit qualifies as hard work.
As a closing statement, I implore those who bother to read this to learn things for fuck sake. You are a human being, do something with your life. Learn new skills for crying out loud. If you want to draw, learn to draw, using AI to draw for you is degrading and sad. Creation for creation's sake is meaningless and destructive. Now stop bothering me with all this painfully cringe AI content. I DON' WANT TO SEE IT!!! STOP SHOWING IT TO ME!! Thank you.