When scrolling LinkedIn, I see a lot of “LinkedIn influencers” trying to break through the algorithm. Being in the content writing sphere, it is expected that a lot of these posts are about writing and editing.

There is a whole subgenre of posts on LinkedIn just about writing and editing. Tips, techniques, experiences, sharing work—anything you can think of, it’s there.

However, more often these days, I have seen posts focusing on the use of generative AI.

“How I use AI to write my headlines!”

“10 ways you can be a successful writer through ChatGPT!”

“How to use AI to speed up your editing process!”

Most posts have the same format: short introduction, hook, a bunch of meaningless one-line paragraphs, and then the final line as some inspirational or thought-provoking message. While some of these posts are not written using AI, many are, and I have seen many people commenting on those and pointing that out.

There’s also the younger crowd of university and high school students boasting about using generative AI to write assignments, proof their work, generate images for silly posts… I could go on. I’ve seen people use it to write grocery lists, give therapy, and roleplay with them. It’s even used for research now: “I asked ChatGPT about [insert incredibly nuanced and complex world issue here] and it said…”

In some ways, AI has made our lives easier. In the editing world, it has made our process faster, and some people use it to write too, churning out content before we can even think of it. It helps with grammar on assignments for sleep-deprived students, and it helps give simpler and easier-to-reach answers for a variety of problems.

In the same breath, it also feeds into this sense of anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism can be described as an overall sense of distrust or contempt for intellect, including intellectual thoughts and people. It often presents itself as people saying “it’s not that deep” to a thoughtful and well-researched commentary about some social issue, or the belief that intellectuals are “out of touch.”

Also, it can look like this alleged lack of credibility when individuals like professors or doctors speak out against something (e.g., the Harvard professors who study authoritarianism leaving the U.S. in fear of persecution, and some people responding that they “didn’t know what they were talking about”; or doctors and nurses not being taken seriously during the pandemic, etc.). I would say that attempting to discredit professionals in their field and sowing distrust in institutions such as health or academic organizations is more serious than a comment on a video essay, however both add to this culture of encouraging people to not truly think about what politicians and the government say to them.

Anti-intellectualism can become this movement of people who put no investment or regard into their future, studies, or what genuinely educated and knowledgeable people are saying about real issues. It turns into university students refusing to put effort into the classes they’re paying for because it’s “easier to use AI” than to genuinely think for themselves.

I only recently graduated from university, and people in my year were doing this just as much as freshmen were. Even more, older generations are also getting onto the AI-train, both professionally and personally.

I know people double my age using AI to write headlines or interview questions for them, summarize meeting minutes, come up with funny jokes, etc. At a time when the human voice is of utmost importance, especially in the face of authoritarianism, political discontent, bigotry, and the rise of generative AI replacing artists of various media, people are copping out. They are falling for this idea that things need to be easier instead of more authentic.

I understand the desire to use AI, I really do. I’ve been slammed with deadlines on top of deadlines and finals as the cherry on top, I’ve been in time-crunches for different projects and emails, and I’ve crammed for finals on the day of in the waiting room. Admittedly, before I did more research on the negative impacts of generative AI, I used it to help cram. So it’s not like I am sitting up here on my high horse and acting as if there are no reasons to use it.

If anything, AI filled a hole for many of us; it became that secret tool to make our lives easier.

However, I’m of the mind that not everything should be easy. There are some things you need to work for, even if it’s hard, even if it takes time and effort. There is a reason why universities have research and critical essays as assignments: they make you—you guessed it—do research and think critically! Knowledge and wisdom are not just given to us on a silver platter; we need to work for it.

Part of what makes achieving something so desirable is that we do it ourselves. Someone got that award because they worked for it; a writer got good reviews because they spent years writing it; scientists get recognition and celebration because they spent years formulating and analyzing their theories. It’s not that we get recognition in the first place, but rather that we also believe in ourselves that we’ve earned it.

I just can’t imagine using generative AI to write an assignment for you, and then feel genuinely proud that you did well. You did not do anything; you asked a computer to do it for you. There’s no pride or satisfaction to be had in that level of laziness and carelessness.

I’ll bring this back around to anti-intellectualism.

When I was in school, everything was that deep. We are the ones inheriting the world; we are the ones who need to learn how we want to shape it. We can’t do that if we retain none of what we learn throughout our lives, if we do none of the work to obtain knowledge and experience. I don’t know about everyone else, but I personally would not want to be led by politicians who use AI to write their speeches and policy proposals, or listen to music without a stroke of that human genius and creativity that makes it engaging in the first place.

I wouldn’t want to be represented by a lawyer who did hardly any of their work in law school and after it themselves, or support an artist or writer who didn’t put any effort in. When writing essays about political actions or events—even historical ones—it’s essential that you truly engage with the sources you’re using, thinking critically about how you can prove your thesis, what evidence you provide, all of the usual stuff. However, I’d also like to emphasize the importance of understanding what you’re writing about and why.

If you think about what is being suggested when companies are pushing AI to the forefront, you’ll usually find that the world would have much less sincerity and wisdom. More than that, though, you’ll find people are truly—forgive my blunt wording—dumber. There will be individuals who don’t know how to write speeches and perform them for crowds; those who will not be able to defend their arguments and their stances, or don’t know how to debate; people who lack the most basic knowledge learned in university and high school, which is concerning when you think about rising illiteracy rates in countries like the U.S.

The absence of that experience creates a weak foundation for future endeavours, for which you will need to know how to defend your arguments and prove your thesis, or how to write a professional email. If you are dependent on AI to the point where you cannot do the most basic actions without it, are you really making your life easier? Or are you just getting yourself accustomed to not doing the harder parts of life? To what extent are you willing to stop learning for yourself?

It’s also a matter of people not caring if they truly gain this knowledge or not, which is why I connect this to anti-intellectualism. At least on social media, I find it is becoming more common to make fun of people who genuinely want to put the work in for certain things, or who want to make thoughtful commentaries on subjects that are deemed “unimportant”. I’ve seen comments before that say things like “why would I spend so much time on it when I can just get AI to do it for me?” or even mocking users for not using AI.

Some people also use AI for doing research on important topics, and don’t seem to care that some sources are simply made up, or that the actual research capabilities of generative AI still don’t hold a candle to human capabilities of understanding and critical thinking. You need to know why a certain source would be important for your work, and how you can justify its inclusion; you can’t do that if it doesn’t exist in the first place. And furthermore, where did the genuine enjoyment in learning go?

As I mentioned earlier, tuition is essentially being wasted on those who don’t put any effort into actually doing the work in school, to apply the knowledge spread in classes more directly than taking notes. Generative AI is not an “accessibility tool,” it plagiarizes work from others and directly contributes to destroying the environment every time you search. As someone who did need accessibility in university, there are better ways to work around learning disabilities or otherwise that don’t cause nearly as much harm.

In creative spaces as well, there is the problem of plagiarism. AI takes pieces of art and media published all over the internet to create the images it does, which means that it takes the work of artists without credit, for users to pass off as their own. This not only steals their work but also affects job opportunities for artists themselves, as now companies can save on costs with this. This also comes down to many people not wanting to learn the skills needed to create art.

As mentioned earlier, comments on the posts of artists that spend months writing, animating, or painting say, “I could’ve done this in 10 minutes with ChatGPT.” But what would the quality difference be? Where would the heart be? In my humble opinion, you can look at a piece of art—a novel, animation, painting, or any medium, really—and know that it was made with passion and intention. It becomes all the more obvious when it is soulless, a calculation made by a computer somewhere that can only guess what it means to make something moving.

Art is meant to be made by humans; we have been making it since the dawn of time. Think of the cave paintings done tens of thousands of years ago; one of the most significant and incredible things about them is that they were made by humans. Before we even had a concept, an inkling, of making art, of selling it, it was a call to the future and cultural practice that screamed into the void: “I was here.” It is an almost instinctual thing to find beauty in the world and enhance it, portray it.

There is no way to ever replace the legacy and history that artwork has with AI. The human voice is a substantial and necessary part of it. And if someone can’t be bothered to learn the skills to make art (remember, art doesn’t have to be good or skillful, it just has to be made), then what’s the point?

I’ve also seen arguments that AI makes art “accessible” for people, in terms of making it. But musicians have gone deaf and still made music, painters have been blind, and there are so many more examples of art being accessible without stealing the work of other artists. You have so many opportunities to find a medium of art that speaks to you and learn it, take joy in it, since that is what art is meant to do. How is there any joy or passion in typing in a prompt?

All of this to say, if you can’t bother to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to do whatever you use AI for yourself, then maybe you should take a long look at yourself and wonder why. Why can’t you be bothered to think for yourself?

Sustainability

This brings me to the second part of this article.

If you are using AI regularly, or at the very least up to date on all of its advancements, you will know how many conversations surround the environmental impacts it has.

In a research guide posted by Queen’s University, they note that the data centers used to power AI systems use an unprecedented amount of water, and also emit enormous amounts of carbon emissions. The water can be used for cooling and powering data centers, as well as producing technical components necessary for AI models. In a report done by the International Energy Agency, one search using ChatGPT consumes 10 times the electricity a Google search does, adding to carbon emissions with the excessive use of energy.

Another study by the International Energy Agency, done in 2023, estimated that data centers globally used around 140 billion liters of water just for cooling. To make it more obvious, larger data centers can consume as much water as a city of approximately 50,000 people. As well, the materials for AI models are often rare metals and have negative impacts in obtaining them, and the amount of land needed for these centers to be built also destroys local biodiverse areas, farmland, and nature.

While there are further regulations in place to prevent an overreach of power and irresponsibility of companies using AI, that does not erase this issue. This is not something one can ignore, especially as the things AI are being used for, largely, are unnecessary and can be done by humans.

As well, one needs to consider what living in proximity to these data centers can mean for local water pressure and quality. One example is a woman living in Georgia near a data center whose water is now cloudy and brown, with many water pressure issues on top of that. So, if environmental issues are not enough to sway you, consider the impacts on local water supplies, which include high water stress, water quality, and water pressure.

When generative AI is used for something as redundant as grammar checking an email, creating a funny picture, or making a study plan, it is directly contributing to harming the environment and those living in it. In response to this, some often say that everything one does hurts the environment. Hot showers, leaving a light on, and leaving something plugged into the wall when you’re not using it. While that’s true, shouldn’t you do everything you can to mitigate harm to the environment? We were raised our whole lives being told to turn off lights when we’re not in a room, to recycle, to not litter, and other things that were directly designed to protect the environment. Why should this be any different? Why are you suddenly exempt from doing your part just because you can’t write your own to-do list?

As well, some bring up the fact that nothing they can do can ever be as bad as the amount of damage larger corporations do. Again, also true! However, if they are causing substantial harm to our environment, why would you want to contribute to that?

All of this to say, I firmly believe that there are not a lot of reasons to use AI, especially for such redundant things, when you should be fully capable of doing them yourself. While I understand there are exceptions to this, we should all work to mitigate harm to our planet as well as our culture and society as a whole. This means learning to think critically and use methods you learn throughout your life to assess and analyze all kinds of situations. If you are unable to do that without using AI, you aren’t doing it at all.