I am apart with the use of AI. I always considered myself a purist, with no adoption of AI, especially in its early state. I continued using Google Search for debugging at work, while my team members used ChatGPT. I have a fear that my creativity will be dependent on AI or greatly reduced by the use of AI.
In my mind, AI is created through the use of existing data or information produced by humans like me, speaking on generative AI. With all the legal battles going on over who gave permission for their work to be used and 3rd parties selling information or AI engineers using illegal data to train their models, it’s a whole dimension of crime happening; a market arises of thefts, to put it simply. This poses a question: if AI is made with human image, then why do the fights exist?. Let’s look at it in a physical sense: if I steal your piece of work, especially a researched article you prouduced and used it to write a better one, what are the consequences of that act? If it were in varsity, plagairms would be the charge, but this is not my point to argue; all I am saying is that I will be stealing someone’s art in using the product that is made with their effort and not being incentivized for it.
When it comes to AI, herdmentality comes to mind. I have compared ChatGPT with Claude on small queries, and they seem to be all from the same school of information, while the other got an edge that is not that outstanding in any way. The question is this: is it good for our generation to have that herdmentality in our AI use? Of course there is specific task AI, but they will always get competition, which they will only edge with contextual data indigestion. With this point, I am very skeptical to be vendor locked into heard mentality context generation.
Oh the data sharing hinderence, at work we stopped using AI a bit when the data sharing that it used pose a threat to trade scrrets, not sure how that was solved, coming back to ask ourselves, with the use of our own data pasted on the query, the inclusion of that data makes it better for others, is that right?. One could argue the internat was built that way with people’s contibution, which leads me to my other point to follow on the contribution.
The internt stopped being watered with new information, a decline I have seen in stackoverflow responses; people no longer submit answers to questions, as it’s better to solve it with AI and leave it there, not to share with the world, so the adverse hindrance of data sharing seems to be justified to preserve this growth of the internent.
I could say more to my arguments, but back to my biggest fear, a diminshment on my creatveity due to lack of exercising the muscle, as everything you just type and it responds. Someone can point me to another perspective to look at AI with the same lens of computers processing power increasing to the better for enabling humans to advance and archive more, but I just feel it doesn’t touch the soul of creativity like generative AI.
I recently adopted Copilot because of a lot of ESQL mapping spaning 2 thousand lines at work I had to do. The code completion is very helpful in producing a big cunk, but I was 70% done in the project while doing this, so it seems it used my previous hundreds of lines to put these predictions it impressed me with. There is a potential to cut the time at no cost in creativity, I guess.
Speed—those AI are fast. One thing I have to hand to them is that they make people produce things faster. I wonder what’s going to be the next interview measure as everyone is going to use when AI can be prompted to do someone’s work. Let me not continue this route and conclude here my arguments on AI usage.
