REFUTATION! OBJECTION! ORDER IN THE COURT!
I've been watching a rash of anti-AI posts lately.
And I'm noticing something that bothers me more than disagreement about AI.
It's the certainty.
Actually, it's more specific than that.
It's moral certainty attached to disagreement.
AI makes you dumb.
AI makes you lazy.
If you use AI, you're part of the problem.
Sometimes it goes even further—not merely disagreement about a technology, but judgment about the character of the person using it.
Objection.
I have evidence.
I'm taking a course on Black Holes and Relativity through Peterson Academy. Pretty advanced physics, my friends.
Each lecture is about an hour.
And lately, for every hour of lecture, I've probably spent another three hours talking through it with ChatGPT.
I'm not skipping the fucking lecture.
I'm doing MORE lecture.
I stop. I question. I make predictions. I get things wrong. I argue. I ask why. I explain what I think is happening and see if I've actually understood it. We follow connections into photons, nuclear physics, gravity, relativity, fusion and quantum mechanics.
Then I return to the course knowing considerably more than I would have otherwise.
Could somebody use AI to skip the lecture and have ChatGPT take the test for them?
Of course.
That would be using AI to avoid thinking.
I'm using it to think more.
And that's the distinction getting murdered by all this black-and-white certainty.
AI has dangers. AI has limitations. AI can absolutely be used lazily.
But complicated things deserve complicated thinking.
And no.
You don't get to define my character because I've chosen to work with this technology.
You don't get to tell me that my lived experience didn't happen.
I'll stand here and tell you exactly what happened.
AI didn't replace my curiosity.
It gave my curiosity somewhere to go.
So when someone tells me with absolute certainty that AI makes people stupid, lazy, or somehow morally deficient?
OBJECTION.
Evidence not admitted.
I have a witness.
Me.