Today, I have a short and sweet piece that piggybacks off a wonderful talk I saw from Brandon Sanderson. It helped me clarify the core reason why I rebel against the use of generative AI.
Table of Contents
Brandon Sanderson on AI Art
I saw this wonderful talk by Brandon Sanderson titled, “We Are The Art,” where he grapples with his concern around being “wrong” about AI art. To setup this dynamic, Brandon uses the example of Roger Ebert, who famously claimed that video games are not art. A take that seems horrendous in hindsight.
Brandon’s fear seems to be that, by rebelling against AI art, he is falling for the same trap as “Mr. Ebert.” As a result, he spends much of the early part of the talk dismantling common arguments. For example, he claims that he would still rebel against AI art even if there weren’t any environmental impacts. He also claims that he would rebel against AI art even if the models weren’t trained on art stolen from artists.
Brandon then transitions to contrasting Data from Star Trek with LLMs. Specifically, he talks about how Data pursues the idea of what it means to be a human by developing art skills. In other words, part of Brandon’s disdain for AI art is that it bypasses the process in favor of the product (i.e., it’s about the journey, not the destination).
Brandon brings this point home by talking about his own writing journey—how his early books sucked and how current LLMs could do a better job. Here, he makes himself vulnerable to prove a point. He didn’t write those books to make a bunch of money. He wrote them for the “satisfaction of having written a novel, feeling the accomplishment, and learning how to do it.”
Brandon then shares a ton of profound ideas (at least I think so). For example, he boils down the main reason that he rebels against AI to the idea that it robs us of the chance to grow. He then hits his major point which is the idea that books, photos, and video games are only part of the art (i.e., the proof of art happening); you are also made into art as you change through the process of creating it. To Brandon, art changes us, and machines can’t be changed by the products they create.
Finally, he rounds out the talk on a positive note by arguing that we don’t have to lose to AI. By his logic, because we get to define what art is as a society, we can simply reject AI art.
Your Brain Is All You Have
For a while, I’ve had the same concern as Brandon. Am I simply hating on generative AI because it’s new? Am I just the old man yelling at clouds? Seriously, it’s a concern I have because so many people see generative AI as some revolutionary technology, and I simply do not get it.
But the more I think about, the more I feel justified in my position. After all, as an educator, how can I possibly support a technology that allows students to bypass the learning process? They will never grow or develop if they cannot struggle with the learning process. It’s the exact same argument Brandon is making: there is simply no shortcut to growth.
Yet, as Brandon argues, I think it’s even deeper than that. It’s a question of identity. At what point does your use of generative AI strip you of your individuality and humanity? I don’t mean that in some self-righteous way. I am genuinely concerned that this kind of technology regresses everyone who uses it to the mean.
If you find this idea somewhat absurd, consider my mother. She suffered from small cell lung cancer for a couple of years before passing. I remember there was a moment when the cancer had spread to her brain, and the doctors had recommended targeted radiation. As her son, I wanted her to get the treatment, but she was hesitant. When I asked her about it, she said she didn’t want to risk damaging her brain because “that’s all she had.”
I think it’s obvious what she means. If there’s a possibility that the radiation would have allowed her to live longer but altered her identity, would it have been worth it? I tend to agree with my mom. I would probably rather die.
Yeah, generative AI use is not as bad as dementia or a stroke, but I do think it robs you of your potential. If you’re using it to replace all of the things that make you who you are, then I see that as somewhat depressing. Sure, live your life or whatever, but are you truly living?
There Is Still Hope
I have spent so much time in this series talking about all the things I hate about generative AI. I’ve talked about its negative effects on the future of software development. I’ve talked about how the necessity for infinite training data will result in a mass surveillance campaign. I’ve talked about how even using LLMs for summaries rots your brain. Hell, I’ve talked about how AI having a monopoly on knowledge leads to isolation. I’ve even talked about how AI has made it more soul-crushing to be an educator. I’m a certified AI hater.
Yet at the same time, I feel a sense of hope with videos like Brandon’s, Angela’s, and Internet of Bugs’. I also get a sense of hope around my students, who will ask me to do things like help them disable Copilot in their VS Code.
In fact, I’ve had plenty of older students rant to me about all their peers using tools like Claude to code. I just had one of those conversations last week where a group of graders were annoyed with students using generative AI in their very first programming course. One of them even said, “like, did you even try?” Clearly, they can see the short-circuiting of the learning process in real time.
Though, I did have the opposite conversation with a previous student recently. She was ranting to me how none of her classes will let her use AI. She had apparently worked an internship over the summer, and she said that everyone around her had ChatGPT open all day. It took everything I could not to give her the classic parental lecture, “if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?”
Of course, I will always hold out hope. Maybe it’s my inherent stubbornness, but I simply refuse to accept a reality where we’ve completely turned our humanity over to the machines. While I still someday dream of a world where soul-crushing jobs are replaced by bots, I would love to continue to live in a world where we can express our humanity through things like craftsmanship, writing, music, and sports.
Once again, thanks for reading. I’ve been straying away from talking about generative AI as I’ve just found my day-to-day to be too busy to care, but it continues to creep in every day.
Off the top of my head, I’m obviously annoyed by the cost of computer hardware now, which is driven by the rapid construction of data centers. Also, I recently experienced my first automated drive-thru, which drove my wife actually insane when she said “no thank you” before the Wendy’s bot logged the item anyway (an experience that seems to be happening to others).
Anyway, I would normally share some links below here, but I spammed so many in the article that you can just scroll up. Of course, you can still check out my list of ways to grow the site. Otherwise, take care!
Recent Blog Posts
Welcome to 2026, where cyberpsychosis is a real thing you can get from chatbots, PC hardware is unaffordable, and the housing market is a nightmare. Let's talk about my personal experience with...
Lately, I've been burning out a little bit, and it's been bringing back a lot of memories of what it's like to be deep in the STEM trenches. As a result, I wanted to vent a little about some of the...