It has been over 4 years since the release of ChatGPT 3--arguably the catalyst responsible for popular interest in generative AI--and it remains more polarized than it should be.

Before I start, I want to make it clear I am by no means an "AI bro", nor do I (at the time of writing) have any financial associations with a business in the AI space. There's been a lot of arguments against the usage of AI (despite the fact that it's not going away), and while some of them are valid critiques, many of them just seem more representative of some form of luddism, tribalism, or elitism.

The list of arguments I address is by no means comprehensive, but it is representative of some of the arguments I find most egregious or am just tired of seeing.

Counterpoint: Generative AI takes jobs away from artists

First off, this is peak Luddism. That is not to say it isn't true, there have been many people displaced from their careers by AI, especially writers, and they all have my deepest sympathy.

But, consider that humans have been innovating for thousands of years now. It's the same song and dance we have been through as a civilization multiple times. Technological breakthroughs always end up displacing some careers, but they end up creating new ones.

But this is unprecedented

Big innovations are always unprecedented, that's what makes them innovations.

An extremely similar event was the invention of the printing press, which eliminated the need for scribes altogether. I hope we're all in consensus that this was a good thing.

Secondly, you can't make this argument while also saying that generative AI works are inferior (without further clarification)

Let's imagine a simple, but realistic scenario: An artist makes some amount of money doing commissions for people to make posters or avatars, or whatever. Now that people can generate an infinite amount of anime profile pictures, that will of course, reduce some amount of orders that artist will get.

And now two sub-scenarios:

1. The GenAI content is superior to the artist's works

It's generaly agreed that this is not true, but suppose that it was--what's the problem here? Is it reasonable to expect someone to pay more for an inferior product? I don't think so.

2. GenAI content is inferior to the artist's works

Okay, so now what's the issue? That people aren't paying for something they don't need? This would be like being Ferrari and getting mad at Honda because they're making cheaper, more affordable vehicles. People might not need the quality of hand-made art. This is not even a novel issue, people already buy mass manufactured art.

If you have a superior product, then you shouldn't get upset that a cheaper alternative is now available to others. Your market of high-quality art isn't threatened. Yeah, you're losing some customers, but those customers were only customers because they didn't have an alternative. To get upset at this is straying close to gate-keeping art. And speaking of Generative AI content being inferior ...

Counterpoint: Generative AI Content Has No Soul

You're right. It doesn't. But I don't think that's a problem. Believe it or not, I completely understand how meanings and emotions that enriches art. I took a performance art class in college that changed how I perceived art completely.

Yeah, when an AI makes a picture of a sunset, it doesn't come from a sense of awe or appreciation of nature, and thus the created work is void of emotional depth. But sometimes, people just want a pretty picture. The human story behind an art piece is a significant component of the piece, but it's not all of it. A picturesque scene of a meadow can still be picturesque even if it didn't come from a person.

It's also ridiculous that sometimes I see people that ask whether AI was used to produced media in some video or game, and then if they find out that it does, then they exclaim something along the lines of "Oh, that explains why the art seemed so generic and lifeless". If you had to ask, that means you couldn't tell. And if you couldn't tell, why does it matter?

Counterpoint: Generative AI can be used maliciously to disseminate harmful information

You know what? This is actually pretty valid. But still, my response is "and?". What's the goal here? If you're saying this to spread awareness and advocate for more research and development in fighting misinformation, then great! We're on the same side.

But I see some people use this as an argument against the existence of Generative AI completely. They're probably a minority, in which case, I'm probably wasting my time, but whatever, I see it enough that I'm sick of seeing it.

Reality check: Generative AI is not going anywhere.

The invention of online services like emails and banking made it easier than ever to scam people.

Did we get rid of emails? No, we create spam filters and advocate for public awareness.

Did we get rid of online banking? No, we implemented additional safety checks to mitigate the issue.

Did any of those get rid of the issue completely? No, but we still use them.

Same goes for Generative AI works. Let's focus on thinking up counter-measures and systems to protect against the spread of misinformation. That's the solution. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Conclusion

Generative AI content is not leaving anytime soon. As with anything in the world, it has its pros and its cons. But it's a nothing but a pipe dream to get rid of it.

I see so much fearmongering or doom-speaking about how its drawbacks are going to be the end of human creativity.