Weekly Reflections #12_Effendi Tandoko 陳雄偉_20231229

When choosing for a social issue to present I intentionally did not choose AI because I realize my view on
the subject tends to be more negative than others. I must be one of the few some who are not as excited
towards the development of AI and generative AI and how they are currently being utilized in the world.
Many argued that once a regulation/law are in place, the problems can be slowly abated. However, that
was a flawed logic for ignorance, they prefer to let the problems fester before addressing them because it
did not matter to them but the victims affected by AI.
Throughout the session I refrained myself from attacking anyone on their views and uses of generative AI
for their works or for their creative needs. I understand human nature to that extent and despite my best
effort to stay open-minded, the session still didn’t change my paradigm on how to best use or react to it
rationally.
The generative AI problem is a human rights issue of unprecedented proportions. It’s basically modern
theft, free-riding on society by exploiting human perceptions and the evaluations (from vast amount of
articles, news, daily conversations, etc.) to share the perceptions exchanged in the society. This is made
possible by the unauthorized use of a large number of copyrighted materials that have already been
evaluated in society.
The allure of AI entices those who fetishize ideas but dismiss the work. They are the people who tell
writers, “I’ll give you the idea then you write it and we’ll split the profits”. For them, the vision is everything
and the process is just an annoying obstacle. But the process is EVERYTHING. The process is how a thing
happens, where it’s made, where skill is put to work. AI in creativity is for the people who have no skill, no
work, no effort, and no ethic. They just want to push a button.
For another many researches have been done to identify the threat that AI could bring not only socio-
economically but also environmentally. The contrast between training AI models with countless datasets
and the average uses of automobiles showed a non-sustainable pathway for our technology to move
forward. Moreover, Microsoft & Google’s annual report highlighted their increase use of water to cool
down their equipment. A third-party research claimed that training ChatGPT will continue to use more
water the more questions are being asked to it.
These radical cases put forward that without proper understanding and well-managed system in place, we
will not be able to control any damages that this technology is chipping away at. I understand that other
beneficial uses on how AI could assist workers in identifying illnesses, clarifying big research data,
predicting accidents are absolutely necessary. I’m not saying that we should stop any AI advances. I’m just
making a point that its current utilization is flawed by individuals trying to shirk accountability, glorifying
convenience and disregarding other communities.
The current personification of generative AI being incredibly helpful is a falsehood to cover up a
materialistic nature in human perception. It cajoles people into a blind faith in the idea that AI and the
inner workings of humans are equivalent. During the class discussion, I brought up a food-for-though as ‘to
what extent are you willing to give up your agency on your responsibilities to AI?’
Some said that AI just did the bare minimum work for them as they will go over what AI has produced and
basically redo the words and sentences, but if that extra work took the same amount of time, then why do
they need AI in the first place? Because by not believing in your capacity to start with you are losing the
time to work on yourself for the better. I didn’t share this notion in class because I didn’t want to push
anyone’s button further since I’m the odd one out.
The use of AI could also proliferate more hate crime. The production of fake media over socials could
provoke one cluster’s perception against another cluster. It’s always going to be us against them without
an end. This cessation of thought and loss of a healthy skeptical attitude that asks “is this really a proven
fact?”. For me, believing in interdisciplinary studies to analyze is currently underway as mentioned in the
aforementioned researches. However, I don’t think we are at the point to safely suggest AI to moderate or
even offer policy solutions for this complex social issues. A step-by step process is necessary. By slowly
shedding light on the hidden social & environmental dilemma surrounding AI, people can foster an
informed dialogue and drive the adoption of responsible practices. Because at the end of the day, it all
goes back to your own conscience whether to use generative AI on your daily life or not.
Weekly Reflections #12_Effendi Tandoko 陳雄偉_20231229