Emily Kemper | The Chronicle
Here is the thing: no one is listening. From corporations to the classroom, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is finding its footing. The possibilities are promising: it is increasing worker productivity, enhancing lesson plans, allowing for personalized learning and making life more convenient. Whether a corporation is looking to cut costs or a student waits until it is too close to the deadline for a project, AI has become the answer.
That answer is a flawed one. Generative AI models consume large amounts of electricity and can emit hundreds of tons of carbon. According to MIT News, an estimated 1,287 megawatt hours of electricity are needed for the training process alone — the same amount of power needed to power over 100 homes for a year. AI also stresses our already limited freshwater resources, as AI processing equipment needs a constant cooling system.
AI use by the military has generated ethical and legal questions about the limits of this tool, as highlighted by Anthropic’s clash with the Pentagon. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon fought AI company Anthropic over a $200 million contract: Anthropic demanded terms that would not allow its product to be used for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens or autonomous lethal weapons, while the
Pentagon argued a private company can’t tell the government how to use its product. Some people fear AI may take over their jobs, and while not many jobs can be fully replaced by AI, a survey from the Harvard Business Review found that 60% of surveyed organizations were making headcount reductions in anticipation of AI. Not to mention issues of bias, misinformation, and the death of original thinking.
For some, the environmental impacts and ethical dilemmas are evidence enough to never enter a prompt into ChatGPT. For others, this information flows in one ear and out the other. While just last year I was adamantly aligned with the former, this year I have grown less hostile towards AI. And I will admit, a major reason for that shift was a desperate need for some help on my AP Biology study guide. But I have also accepted that throughout history, people have commonly reacted like this to new technology: with skepticism, fears about losing jobs, and a desire to stick to tradition. Ultimately, productivity increases, new jobs are created to replace those that are lost, and society pushes forward. The rapid pace of AI’s improvement — and its glaring faults — makes this whole process faster and scarier, but I predict that this historical pattern will persist.
So when I hear criticism towards AI that simply boils down to “it is bad, do not use it,” or “it is doing all the thinking for you,” I feel like that battle is already lost. No one is listening. And if people are, then they just do not care. No matter how many statistics or logical arguments or ethical questions you shove in someone’s face, individuals and companies will continue to use AI. It is not worth our time and energy to try to stop AI from being adopted, because even in this flawed beginning, it has already been.
Instead of fighting a losing battle, we need to redirect our energy towards regulating and improving AI. Decrease the environmental damage. Regulate what corporations and governments can do with this powerful tool. Understand that AI is just as biased as the humans that trained it. Support the dedication and creativity of real artists over something a computer spits out.
I do not want to be frightened by AI. I want to be firm about how it fits into our world and make sure it is always aiding humanity, not replacing it. We need to accept that AI is the future, but we do not have to accept it as it is now.
