Generative AI Lets You Be as Delusional as a CEO

Welcome back! This is a short and sweet one for you today. I've found my way back into the pro-AI bubble on campus, and I basically wanted to rant about it here. As usually, it's behind the paywall because I got a little heated. My Return to the Pro-AI Bubble While I'm aware that the vast majority of people at this point hate generative AI, the tech industry still very much seems to be in a bubble of acceptance. So while I'm likely preaching to the choir here, I still find myself fighting the anti-AI battle in the computer science classroom. Don't believe me? Here are just a few paraphrased quotes from the first week of class after I announced my disdain for the tech: If we're not supposed to use AI, how do we do the homework? Don't you think it's more important to be able to access knowledge than it is to have knowledge? Perhaps that second quote is a conversation for a different time (because I have a lot of thoughts), but these are real interactions I've had with students this semester. Of course, my beef isn't with students. I understand that they're all just trying to get jobs and survive in this hellscape. I am more frustrated with how much the tech industry gets to control the narrative, and I'm particularly obsessed with an argument that I keep seeing made in our field: generative AI is a force multiplier. Is Generative AI a Force Multiplier? The argument generally works by analogy, perhaps because they're so effective for building hype (e.g., generative AI is like the calculator). In this case, the analogy might start by comparing generative AI to power tools: "oh, these days you wouldn't build a shed with just a hammer and some nails." In other words, generative AI is a force multiplier. I find this analogy, much like the calculator analogy, absurd. For a technology to be a force multiplier, it would have to augment your abilities, not replace them (similar to what I recently learned from Doctorow about "reverse centaurs"). See, as software developers, we've had power tools for awhile. They're called compilers, IDEs, unit testing, APIs, the internet, etc. There was a time when developers were writing code without the internet. That's a power tool. In contrast, generative AI is what it's like to pay contractors to build your shed. You never even picked up a nail, let alone used power tools. Your skills certainly weren't augmented. It's absurd to even pretend they were. So no, I would not consider generative AI a force multiplier. It's more like being a CEO who used daddy's money to purchase a factory, and you're just as delusional too. Your Use of Generative AI Is Making You Delusional I'm not saying anything I haven't said a million times on this site, but I really feel like this idea of delegating reasoning tasks to a machine is no different than what capitalists do (i.e., the people who "own the means of production" like land and factories). In other words, when you lean on generative AI to do tasks for you, you delude yourself into thinking your genius was the only reason the output was possible. In reality, you bring nothing to the table. In fact, you probably don't even understand what the agent has done for you (much like the argument Spolsky makes around the challenges abstraction adds to teaching). It's the (stolen) labor of others that made the output of an LLM possible. In other words, it's just automated exploitation that you're perpetuating. But, you might argue that you're aware you haven't created anything. In other words, you claim not to be delusional. Are you certain? Over time, even if you don't increase your reliance on the technology, surely your skills grow worse. Before long, you'll delude yourself into thinking you're still an expert. At the same time, if you know you haven't created anything, why use the technology at all? Is it for the money? Because even that feels delusional. Anyone can spin up a generative model now. What makes you special? Why would anyone willingly pay for your version of slop? And, what's stopping someone from replicating your slop at a moment's notice? Is it instead for the utility? Are you actually using it to create something useful? I am highly suspicious of these sorts of arguments because we're four years into this insanity, and my life hasn't been improved in any meaningful way. I think it's delusional to think that generative AI will somehow change that. From just about any angle I look at it, the person using generative AI is destined to become delusional. There is no value created, there is no skill developed, and there is no growth happening. All the while, you're at risk of developing psychosis at any moment. I just don't get it. Thanks as always for reading! I had originally meant to flesh this piece out more, but I think this honestly could have been a tweet. Turns out, it's tough to write thought-provoking pieces when you're in survival mode with two kids, but I'm sure I'll be back at it eventually. Anyway, take care!