Some thoughts on generative AI

Alberto Mardegan — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 14:27:12 GMT

Among all the blog posts and videos in the internet which are critical of AI (specifically LLM, generative AI), I haven't yet met one which puts the main focus where I'd put it, so here's yet another text critical of AI.

A good list of points can be found on this site, which, to my surprise, is missing exactly that point that I'd bring up first: the destructive impact of AI on society. Many other pain points, such environmental, copyright, centralization and quality issues, can (and, hopefully, will) be addressed and fixed as the technology improves, but one aspect that will never be resolved is the disintegration of human relationships. They are already at a pretty low stage, judging by the amount of people who sit in restaurants looking at their phones instead of talking to each other, but generative AI takes this further down by quite a few steps.

By empowering the individual to reach their goal in autonomy, AI renders social contacts less necessary: if I ask it to generate a picture, a book, a program, a medical diagnosis (don't laugh, this is happening already!), a holiday plan, I'm certainly saving a lot of time, but I'm also not talking to a designer, an author, a software developer, a doctor, a friend, who might have fulfilled the same task and give me something more, too: they could have made me learn something about this task or their profession, share a bit of their expertise, they could have asked questions that would help me better understand what I really want, made some suggestions and, why not, started developing a friendship.¹

People are harder to deal with, that's a fact: AI doesn't (or will not, as it improves) require you to be polite, patient, ask you to repeat the same thing a couple of times, it will not delay the delivery because of some family issues or disappoint you with the result (if it does, just try again, it's anyway fast to iterate). But in my opinion talking to humans is an effort well worth the candle: humans can grow wiser through experience and interactions, and by talking to the same artist whose work initially disappointed you, you can both gain something and learn how to productively work with each other.

As human generations pass, it's becoming clearer and clearer that evolution has stopped and we are degrading on several fronts, including communication, empathy, and the ability to organise ourselves in communities (no matter how small). We are getting into a point where someone in power can effectively disable you with a click of a mouse button, by cutting your only link with the rest of the humanity. No one will ever hear of you again, remember that you exist and that you might be in need of help.

That's all for the main point of this article. I'm continuing with more considerations below, for those few who are into reading.

It's not a tool

Describing AI as a tool like many others is lying to ourselves. It's only true in those cases where the result is predetermined by the inputs, but as soon as the "generative" part of the AI kicks in, it stops being a tool and it becomes an independent brain, with its own creativity. A hammer does not decide where and how strongly to hit, a car does not decide where to go, and a photocamera does not decide what to photograph. It's true that complex algorithms have started to creep into our tools since a long time, so a car might decide to limit your speed and your photocamera might adjust the exposure and decide on which subject to set the focus, but we are still speaking of predictable algorithms, which anyway many professionals detest and switch off whenever possible — exactly because they wanted a tool, and nothing more than that.

Result versus process

AI is mostly about the result: you just want something done, quickly and as soon as possible. Non-AI is about the process: it's when you enjoy doing something, even if it's hard, even if it's new to you, because you like the journey of learning and discoverying. That's why I don't program using AI. Progress is not just about getting work done faster and better; it's mostly about improving your life, being able to do things you enjoy doing. I shoot using a film camera, I go shopping by foot, I write paper letters by hand, and people do still ride horses.

Using AI-generated products

I don't mind using something that's AI-generated, as long as that's something of little importance to me (like a software program that I know I'll use just once in my lifetime). But especially if we talk about software programs, then we need to keep in mind that, using AI, the speed of their creation is potentially proportional to the speed of their dismissal: it's harder to build a community around an AI-generated project (and its author might not even feel like he needs one), and without a community the project is dead the moment that it's author decides that it's not worth to work on it anymore. And given that the invested time (and received pleasure) creating and maintaining this project is typically lower than that of a non-AI project, the personal attachment to it is also likely lower.

If people enjoy creating programs (and even whole operating systems) using AI that's completely fine, but my interest towards them is close to zero: I don't want to risk getting accustomed to (or dependent on) something that could get discontinued at any time.

Not even to mention the case where AI is not being used to solve a task, but just as a chat companion. ↩

Mardy (Articoli su intelligentia artificial)

Some thoughts on generative AI

It's not a tool

Result versus process

Using AI-generated products