Lately, I've been trying to understand our collective discomfort with AI generated content, and why we've drawn the line where it is. Now, now, calm down, put the pitchforks down.
Hear me out:
My main audience is programmers so I'll start there.
Don't worry, artists, I'll get to you, too.
Say a programmer makes a tool to solve his problem, maybe to manage his config files.
He goes: hmm, if this is useful to me, maybe someone else on the other side of the world in a decade or two might find it useful too! And puts it on GitHub.
But he's been there: finding a really cool GitHub tool with zero documentation.
That's just how it goes. You make something for you, then toss it on GitHub because well why not? But you're not gonna spend a day documenting the tool you made on a weekend, are you?
So he thinks to himself, you know? Maybe not a day, but I can spare a few hours, what if I use this new AI thing to write the majority of the documentation and then just audit it. That way, if someone finds it they at least have something.
That sounds fine, right?
But I can assure you, when he's sharing his tool he's going to get flamed for using AI to generate the docs.
From the outside? It's just AI slop.
It looks like he used it to avoid work he would've done otherwise.
But we rarely consider the possibility of "what if it wasn't a shortcut"?
What if the AI made him spend more time because without it, the docs would have never existed in the first place?
So I want to ask you, dear reader: would it really have been better if the tool had no documentation at all?
"Wait, you're saying AI is good?"
Yes- No? AI used to create something is better than nothing.
Let's look at another discipline, art.
Now I'm not an artist so excuse my French here but let's take a painter who wants to explore new art styles, but can't, due to illness or injury.
How harmful is it for the painter to use AI to create?
Is it harmful that the AI was generated on content the artists didn't consent to? Of course! But how much of it is the painter's fault?
You see the pattern, yeah?
We have these incredible tools but we're not letting ordinary people use them.
We're encouraging dreams to stay dreams.
What if someone uses AI to learn the guitar? Like, using it to get feedback.
Well yeah! That person could go to a guitar teacher instead!
When we say that, aren't we gatekeeping learning to those who have the money to afford it?
"No that's not what I meant!"
No I know. When you decided you disliked AI, you meant corporate bullshit.
Firing artists, replacing programmers and voice actors, cutting corners. Selling AI generated slop at full price.
Creating bullshit "Top 10" lists, expensive courses and books that are obviously auto-generated.
Thinking AI replaces human talent.
I agree, that's bad.
But that's not me,
That's not you,
That's not them.
So why are we the ones catching strays?
People's anger is at the indie dev using GPT to make their dream game, but not at the startup selling trash to VCs at scale.
Because they're easier to reach than the people we're actually mad at. And so we end up blaming people trying to build, learn, and share while letting the ones ruining industries go untouched.
I'm not saying you're doing this. I don't know you.
But there is a dangerous pattern and we need to be careful about what incentives we're indirectly promoting.
Because right now? You can't use AI, I'll ruin your reputation and drain your passion. Unless you're the CEO in which case I'm still mad at you but I can't do anything about it so I'll go be angry at another indie.
It's annoying. We have this purism mentality that is harming everyone.
Look, I'm only a single person so I'm sure to some of you I've missed the whole point. Regardless, I'd love to hear other people's perspectives so if you want to discuss this you can leave your pitchfork here and find me over at my discord server.
psst, can you consider tipping me on ko-fi? thank you!
