I lied. This will be a monologue on AI…at least as it exists now—simple LLMs.

I routinely run into this conversation in personal life on this topic. From professionals who still use these services, but ultimately voice their concerns: “It will replace me” or “it’s ruining critical thinking”, etc etc. To others who either choose not to recognize or use it. What I end up realizing there are two primary sentiments: inherently polar to another as all arguments are. To generalize this it’s simply ‘for’ and ‘against’.

This is a gross oversimplification. Realistically, most people fall within this polarity with conditions. What needs to be observed is that regardless of the condition these arguments dance around the middle. Some will be close to arguing around the center, but never quite taking a stance that I would argue: authorship.

The generation of art, in all forms, is a tremendous sticking point presently. It doesn’t transpose the overall conversation; however, this specific argument is a bit more revealing of the ‘against’ crowd. People have the right to take their stances, but I find there is an underlying feeling, or fear, that no one wants to admit to themselves; “Will this expose how much of my identity was validated by exclusivity rather than agency?”

This is a very harsh truth for all humans on this planet. Fears of their existence, not a fear of simply existing, but more so where they fit in the chaos of the universe. It can be dressed up in many forms. The fact remains that this tremendous push into these tools alerts this existential fear, and it rightly should.

What we face now results in nothing more than abdication. Allow me to poorly explain…

Atrophy, Abdication and a Justified Excuse

    I am rejecting the idea of a zero-sum game with LLMs/AI/AGI. I recognize it as a very powerful expansion for humans as a species, but accessing risk is critical. Abdication is becoming my new favorite word because it fits the overall theme of this writing.

Here’s where we’re at: Most monolithic companies will stop at nothing pumping money into this thing and it will be forced upon everyone wherever it fits, even if poorly. Money after all is their modus operandi, but it doesn’t have to be ours. Forced acceptance doesn’t mean people must use it. Over time it will become more acceptable as simply something that exists alongside us. What I’m going to try and articulate by the end of this rant is authorship.

Because individuals are ultimately powerless in the face of enigmatic business forces; the real power is found acting on behalf of the self. Regulations and laws without understanding the risks of this tool, existential or not, will bastardize the self. You will get something far worse and far less meaningful. What some individuals face now would be abdication. It’s a rational standpoint, but it plays into weaknesses. Atrophy of the mind as the result is not because of the tool itself but because of us. We prefer frictionless experiences.

An interesting example would be Internet search behavior. We all have used pervasive search engines with glee to get answers to a question we seek… Lately this is furthest from the truth. Most agree that search quality has floated into bloated over-optimized nonsense to drive traffic and profit. This creates friction and results less immediately appealing for whatever you seek. Admit it, no one wants to move past the first 3 result pages. This is friction.

Where this tool shines is frictionless results with a human familiarity. Everybody will always ask someone that is presented in a capacity exceeding themselves. We’ve just artificially mimicked it.

Most will turn to government overreach to advocate on behalf of themselves to protect whatever threat is imposed. Others will rely on a company’s internal “AI Ethics Committee” to ensure the product is aligned with preventing the fear of the unspoken. This is abdication of the self. Now to be entirely fair, regulations are needed to coexist with my argument but it shouldn’t supersede one’s self. It’s just good economics of scale.

Let me offer a thought: Is the carpenter only as good as their tools? Is the painter the brush?

Exclusivity vs. Agency

    Carpenters still exist albeit they might look different than before. Humans developed tools not out of a need to replace, but to become more efficient. Hand tools are replaced by power tools. Some power tools being replaced by entire systems. Follow this awful thought process: Chisel, Lathe, CNC machine. Conceptually all the same. It’s a bad analogy as they are all used for different tasks nowadays, but there is a clear developmental overlap. Precision and efficiency being the operative desires here.

Did these advancements replace anybody? Not outwardly so. Yes, I’m glossing over The Luddite Movement and its theme but I’ll revisit this later I promise.

Many people’s identities are built on the following ideas; “The one who knows”, “The one who remembers”, or “The one who can do”. When knowledge and execution become abundant (automated), people’s identities tend to collapse. Collapse can be avoided if subjective measures are held; judgement, taste, and responsibility.

If someone is trained to perform expertise, this abundance becomes threatening. But if someone was trained to exercise expertise they will simply adapt. It’s not lost on me that there is a conditional to this sentiment.

Let’s revisit the carpenter. Atrophy for a carpenter is when one stops understanding minute knowledge. Woodgrain patterns, wood fiber behaviors, ignoring fastener uses (nail or screw, it’s all the same right?), joinery techniques, cutting techniques, etc etc. Tools facilitate this. With the right tools, even I can poorly fabricate something functional and hide my loose understanding under paint, caulk, trim board, nail usage, etc. With a few hand tools and a manual, I can put furniture together. That doesn’t make me much of a carpenter. Just trained in performing expertise.

There’s a reason why people are drawn towards things of more “quality”. Sometimes it’s the external validation of how special/expensive/unique it is, but that attempts to devalue the creation. You can buy fine-art for clout, but you can’t ignore what’s inherent underneath. IKEA furniture looks nice, but wouldn’t you prefer to have a bookcase made from solid wood—expertly crafted joinery delicately hiding tooling marks, or different pieces of wood, etc? That’s the difference between trained expertise and exercising expertise. Both of the furniture might have been created with the same tools, but results speak for themselves as they say.

For the older crowd, remember SpongeBob squaring off against Triton on making something as simple as a burger? This is what I’m talking about.

The danger isn’t in the tool working, it’s that we’re removing contact with resistance. It’s a fight over convenience absolutism. The discomfort of relearning to be a novice. Credential collapse. External validation.

As long as society rewards output over understanding, speed and not depth, and certainty over exploration then abdication wins.

Authorship

    I’m not arguing to reject what we develop. Nor am I arguing we surrender here either. There is a happy middle ground; intentional use with a preserved agency. I think people struggle with this concept. It requires a bit of humility and patience. Patience is a rare resource for us all, but many of us simply cannot face our own humility. I understand, but it’s okay really. We’re all human, that’s what makes this experience meaningful.

Responsibility is also needed. The idea is to not allow others to think for you, but to think for yourself. This is hard to accept. I struggle with it myself as I’m directly in the line of fire with these tools. Even this blog is directly in the line of fire. You don’t know if a human wrote this. Did I edit it? He used an em-dash, that’s a clear sign of AI usage eye roll. You want honesty? I wrote this initially without using it and it doesn’t roll the same. That initial choice was out of fear of criticism. It’ll stay. I enjoy how it flows verbally.

Tools expand human capacity without needing to erode agency. Historically this is plainly seen. When one allows agency to erode, abdication takes its place. We, as a species, are incentive driven but we all have the capacity for grace. We have the capacity to see that we have cognitive restraints and our tools are what allows us to be rightfully human. Yes, LLMs/AGI/AI will displace people, but it has the ability to augment expertise akin from a hand drill to a power drill. It doesn’t remove the knowledge requirement, but allows a different barrier to entry. Humility and patience become the important operative approach to these transitions.

Ultimately people should be invited and encouraged to grow, expand, learn, and specialize. Friction is where the human condition shines. These tools can be intelligently designed to allow proper authorship and agency. It doesn’t need to erase a voice. A writer doesn’t fear a new ink, a new pen, a new way of sharing their voice. They adapt. Who knows, maybe authors will simply just become public lecturers. Ebooks will just be glorified podcasts recapturing the moment. In a way this somewhat exists in the music industry.

Contrary to my argument, there are others that utilize the existing infrastructure in ways that are not human at depth. Sure art (books, music, visual media) are produced but the depth of that material finds to also be lacking. As if humans innately understand that it isn’t human. It’s used pervasively to make money, but are these individuals not also recognizing the agency provided for their gains? Those individuals always existed. To them this is just another tool to make it more efficient. They are also adapting. Their expertise is practicing trained expertise efficiently.

I won’t shy from it. I have always wanted to self-host a website. I used these tools to “shop” around for a stack. There are ready-made things for what I’m doing, but I wanted to blend what I know with what I didn’t. It’s been a learning opportunity. I’m also not an artist. I can’t draw well so I had AI generate me an image for my Ko-Fi account. Trust me, the irony isn’t lost on me. Some will stick to their beliefs and walk away at this point. That’s fine, I’m not holding you hostage.

It’s difficult for me to get my point clearly across to wherever you sit. I ask simply to assess the risk of these tools. Not where it displaces your existence in the universe. Your self isn’t present because of societal standards, it’s where you place it. People change, societies change, value changes but what’s inherent to you is just that and others feel it too. Allow depth to be expressed where words can’t. Use tools responsibly, with grace and humility.

Revisiting the Luddite Movement

    There is a lot of truth in this event. It espouses what I’m getting at here. Today, there are fine textiles available, beautifully crafted clothing, and intricately designed materials. There are also ranges from cheaply made clothing to things in-between.

Efficiency didn’t erase skilled craftsmen, but it did change the landscape. Tools to produce quality textiles exist on all levels. Sure it can get more bespoke, more handmade, more intimate but can’t everything? It’s also worth noting that government overreach is chiefly at play here with economic desires and behaviors of companies who value profit.

We face this today—almost continually. It’s easy to see the ‘against’ crowd growing into an increased hunger for chaos and frenzy to protect. The same is true for the ‘for’ crowd to pressure powers to act on their will. Also reminds me of “The Man In The White Suit”.

This argument isn’t unique. It’s pervasive because it stands on the cusp of humans’ greatest fear. The unknown valuation of existence. Where do we stand?