Generative AI should be used to transform society, not put dogs in Van Gogh paintings
As a technology journalist, I am open to technological change and the impact of it. But the recent rise of generative AI has left me with a lack of galvanized enthusiasm.
This is not necessarily down to the existential threat generative AI can have on ‘content’ – a big part of my job – and various jobs, art forms, information decimation, and more. Instead, my lackluster view on AI stems from a feeling that it should be pushed further to augment human experiences and society instead of simply taking on usually human-centric work.
Don’t get me wrong, generative AI can do some very useful things; I’ve been impressed with AI-powered transcription and live translation. I also appreciate the likes of Google’s Magic Eraser when it comes to removing unwanted objects from photos. And AI can help with one’s day-to-day organization.
On top of this, Google’s NotebookLM can act as a form of education tool by making podcasts out of articles it’s been fed; an evolution of this, reportedly dubbed Daily Listen, could transform articles in the Google Discover section of Chrome and Android phones into podcasts; this sounds genuinely useful.
However, nearly every advert or use case I’ve seen for generative AI stems from making run-of-the-mill human tasks easier, and often in a way I perceive as mundane at best and utterly joyless at worst.
Sure, Generative Edit via Galaxy AI on the Samsung Galaxy S24 can wholly rework a photograph, but where’s the thrill of going out and creatively snapping the photo you want from the beginning?
Apple’s recent adverts for Apple Intelligence show how generative AI can rework a casual, poorly written email into a formal missive. But, forgive me for sort of sounding elitist, if you’re a professional who can’t write a proper email then maybe you should consider some tutoring rather than rely on AI.
The same goes for artwork; sure, generative AI can help rework a few art assets for, say, games, but if it does it all, where’s the real artistic merit? Also, AI art is painfully mid.
I’ve also been served adverts touting how generative AI can help marketers better create content and generate leads, which is effectively an auxiliary tool for an, arguably, auxiliary business function. It’s all so dull. Where are the AI systems that will really revolutionize things for the greater good rather than help speed up the creation of spreadsheets or flyers?
This push to make human-led tasks easier also has a sting in its tail, with tales of students using the likes of ChatGPT to write their essays, people using it to mass apply for jobs, and other ways of churning out content, potentially without any real thought process and at the risk of eroding education and understanding.
Don’t do as the human do
The crux of my argument is I don’t think AI shouldn’t be trying to do jobs for humans – sure, it might make businesses in a capitalist world a little bit more money to tout in their yearly financial reports, but at the cost of a creative and vibrant human-led labor market.
Not to sound too socialist, but ultimately, companies exist as a mechanism to help society function so we don’t all go bashing each other’s heads in for a loaf of bread. If AI does replace a lot of work humans do, where does that leave society? Generative AI could free up people to do different things, but its functions so far seem to be doing human-esque tasks wholesale rather than augmenting them and this makes me question what future jobs AI will unlock rather than replace.
I don’t think AI should be doing art, poetry, or other creative pursuits. Ultimately, generative AI simply regurgitates an amalgamation of what we already have based on the way large language models are trained. It doesn’t really create anything truly new like humans do; granted, there’s a whole argument to be had here into what’s really ever new – see Alan Turing’s paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” – but that’s for another time.
My point here is that generative AI is seemingly being created to take on tasks humans can already do; maybe not always easily, but with some training and effort pretty much everything these AIs can do are within the reach of bipedal organic meatbags.
It’s the same idea as generative AI systems that can seemingly beat the Turing Test; they’re programmed to mimic humans rather than being their own thing.
And it all seems so painfully uninspired despite the technical prowess to get to this point.
Think different
Instead, I’d much rather see generative AI be used in ways that actually augment human lives and society as a whole by supporting them in tasks and functions instead of replacing them.
Recent reports in the US and UK have shown a lack of qualified teachers to fill vacancies in the education systems. So, to make up for that shortfall, I could see generative AI used as a support tool in teaching, letting students ask questions of a smart system while their teachers are busy, or to host auxiliary classes. Generative AI could also be used to support people with learning difficulties on a 24-hour basis or provide a framework for homeschooling for children who live remotely or struggle with a traditional schooling environment.
On the other end of the spectrum, with a growing elderly population, there’s a burden of care on families and society that wasn’t as acute as before, especially in Western families where families tend to be more spread out. As such, the provision of care, delivered by the state or privately, has become more challenging.
It’s here I could envision a generative AI-powered system with natural-language comprehension acting as a form of 24-hour support, helping answer questions from elderly people and – with the help of robotics – complete tasks such as grocery shopping for them when a human care worker might not be available or overburdened with other tasks.
The same could apply to farming, whereby AI-powered robots could fill a shortage of farmhands. Or said robots could help farm workers, say feeding livestock or stacking hay bales, monitoring lambing season overnight, and supporting human workers rather than just doing a task for them.
There’s also scope for generative AI to be increasingly used to help people seeking therapy but might not feel comfortable opening up to a human; this wouldn’t replace the function of human therapists but augment access to therapy for a wider population.
Look, I’m not against generative AI in its current form. It has numerous shortcomings, issues, and a negative environmental impact, all of which need to be worked on for a secure AI future. Yet its potential is vast, ranging from a useful tool to potentially transformative tech.
It’s the latter point that I want to see pushed further. Essentially, I’d like to see AI be used to address issues in society, not just help Joe Idle write an email or Sandra Snappy rework a photo in lieu of learning proper photo editing.
There’s already a lot of research being done in AI technology, but we’re still far from a utopia of smart tech; heck, self-driving car systems, which are almost certainly safer than the majority of human drivers, aren’t commonplace despite their use of advanced tech.
Ultimately, I feel if tech behemoths like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google could put their tech nous into generative AI designed to benefit society rather than deliver punitive profits and erode learning. We could see AI that actually could make the world a better place to the benefit, not replacement, of humans.
You might also like
As a technology journalist, I am open to technological change and the impact of it. But the recent rise of generative AI has left me with a lack of galvanized enthusiasm. This is not necessarily down to the existential threat generative AI can have on ‘content’ – a big part…
