Whether we like it or not, Artificial Intelligence is now an integral part of all of our lives, to a greater or lesser extent, and I believe it is time to openly discuss it, even for me.
What I will try to do is analyze the areas in which AI is and can be used, attempting to understand whether its use, from a social and personal point of view, is a good thing or not, and above all, under what conditions.
I will therefore talk about Artificial Intelligence applied to both the most manual jobs and the most artistic ones (because let’s remember that art is also a job for the artist), and let’s see if we can come up with something that makes sense for the readers.
Artificial Intelligence and Manual Labor
I quote verbatim an article from “prevention and research” which says:
“Repetitive movements and mental health are increasingly becoming a problem for workers employed in certain sectors, specifically those engaged in manual labor. Studies on repetitive movements indicate that the appearance of musculoskeletal pain and disorders resulting from repetitive work practices is associated with an increase in psychological disturbances.”
Translated: Regarding manual labor, those requiring constant and repetitive movements (such as factory work), workers undergo significant physical and psychological stress, inevitably leading to various issues, both physical and psychological (the two are much more interconnected than many people may believe).
It follows, therefore, that the replacement of workers in these specific work areas could be and almost certainly would be beneficial, at least for health, for the individuals involved.
The Economic Side
As long as the society we live in bases individuals’ existence on something as demonic as money, a person’s life remains dependent on money itself, and therefore, the replacement of a human worker with a “cybernetic” worker guided by artificial intelligence will almost always equate to the death of the human worker.
“But that’s not true, there will simply be different jobs.”
“They should have just studied to do something else.”
“They didn’t adapt to the times…”
No! If you have ever even attempted to respond in this manner (or similar), stop immediately and return to giving life its proper value: everyone who is alive deserves and has the right to continue living regardless of studies and skills. Not accepting this is tantamount to being enemies of life itself.
We can therefore conclude that Artificial Intelligence, despite its potential positive influence in the realm of repetitive manual labor, cannot peacefully coexist with the lives of individuals unless governments worldwide work to change the functioning of the system itself.
AI becomes an enemy of life itself within a system that requires individuals to earn the right to live by working, just as it becomes a better friend within a system that guarantees every individual the right to life regardless of work.
THE EXCEPTION OF CREATION
While up to now we have been discussing manual labor and the damages that this type of activity can cause to individuals, I believe it is necessary for me to specify that not all manual labor proves to be harmful.
In fact, humans derive great psychological benefit from both expressing themselves and creating, and it is precisely the combination of “creating” and “expressing oneself” that creates what we can define as “art.”
Art is not only “drawing,” but anything created by humans that expresses, in a way that can be perceived by engaging with the creation itself, something of the person who created it; a piece of their soul.
Therefore, all forms of craftsmanship fall into this category, such as woodworking or pottery, just to give a couple of examples, in which the artisan is free to mold based on what is their “being.”
Such activities are not only beneficial for the artisan themselves but also for the rest of the planet and people, as they create a flow of continuous communication and personal growth.
Not surprisingly, these activities, along with more “classic” artistic ones such as music or painting, are widely used as therapeutic means.
This type of free activity should never, ever be replaced by Artificial Intelligence simply because doing so would weaken humanity in its most intimate essence, preventing it from growing and evolving both as a collective humanity and in the individuality of each element.
"Artistic" AI
The world of art is the one that, more than any other in recent years, has borne the weight of being in the crosshairs of AI and therefore deserves a separate and in-depth discussion.
As I mentioned just above, “art” is not simply the “end product,” but rather the combination of what is created and the soul and personality of the creator. When these two things exist simultaneously, then we can speak of “art” regardless of whether it is an illustration, a musical piece, a photograph, a film, a recipe, a statue, a vase, and so on.
Art is not just a product but also soul and expressiveness, and it is not just “mechanical movement,” but a process that encompasses all the teachings necessary to grow as individuals, teaching us to observe the world around us more and better, to solve problems, to reflect on how to improve, to look within ourselves to understand and express ourselves better every day.
I repeat, therefore, that it is no coincidence that art is one of the most important activities for the individual growth of a person, just as it is no coincidence that it is used as a true form of therapy.
…and it is probably not a coincidence that art itself has been “targeted” by artificial intelligence companies.
The big Heist of the "Artistic" AI
The copyright law prohibits anyone from using, without permission and for commercial purposes, any work created by third parties: precisely for this reason, the first step in creating these AI-linked generators was the establishment of nonprofit public databases that contained, well cataloged by style or artist,
The creation of such databases, being completely disconnected from generative AI companies, has never been deemed illegal but has served as a “fishing pond” precisely for such companies which, in defiance of copyright, began training their models, without any permission from the artists, on everything contained within those databases.
From there, it was an escalation, with art sites that without the users’ permission began to use the art contained within them for the same reasons, up to sites that changed their terms of service to force people to accept that anything they uploaded to the platform would be “fed” to AI.
A veritable blackmail justified by the usual, incredibly stupid, “you’re not obligated to use…” which sounds very much like “you’re not obligated to eat” or “you’re not obligated to drink,” said by a perfect idiot forgetting that without eating or drinking, one dies, just as without the possibility of showcasing one’s work to the world, in a technological society like ours, one dies.
Different models, different excuses
Following the first models of generative (or degenerative) Artificial Intelligence, many others have sprung up like mushrooms, and like wildfire, AI has begun to expand into areas beyond illustration, encroaching into music and photography.
Entire libraries of styles and artists have been created for models that literally “fragment” and “recreate” existing images but “with some differences,” providing a rationalization for those who use them to think “ah, then it’s not stolen, it’s different!”
Several judges have already ruled that AI products cannot be protected by copyright (so anyone selling them is deceiving others) precisely because of these unauthorized appropriations violating copyright. In all of this, among people who find various reasons to continue using them without admitting the total lack of ethics and morality of the act, and those who do so knowingly, the only result is that art as a whole is losing more and more value day by day in favor of what is not art, but only a product.
The most diabolical thing of all is seeing how short-sightedness and selfishness have pitted artist against artist.
“I’m a musician, and it’s not fair that I have to pay an illustrator for a cover since my music doesn’t sell, so I use AI, and I justify it to myself by saying I do it because I’m poor… and then it’s not theft because it’s a bit different, and maybe I tweak it a little.”
A reasoning that is the equivalent of:
“I’m penniless, so since I don’t like being penniless, I have the right to enter other people’s homes and rob them of their belongings… which isn’t even really theft, after all, I’m just taking “a little something,” not everything.”
IRREPARABLE DAMAGES ON A PERSONAL AND SOCIAL LEVEL
In all of this, people, day after day, increasingly lose the pleasure of creating, respect for creations, respect for others, and, blinded by the prospect of profit or savings, increasingly lose themselves and every value and capability.
As I mentioned earlier, the act of “creating” itself elevates the human being, allowing them to grow and develop positively, and every time we decide to let a machine create in our place, besides harming others, we harm ourselves first and foremost, regressing more and more from the state of “human being” to that of “being”.
All the while, a growing atmosphere of hatred is created between those who see their chances of life and expression taken away and those who, with their short-sightedness and selfishness, continue unabatedly to give value to a technology that does not help but replaces humanity.
I do not believe it is a coincidence that, precisely coinciding with the release and dissemination of these Artificial Intelligences, whether they are aimed at creating images or texts, it matters little, the cognitive level of people has only decreased, while hatred and malice have intensified.
All this with decidedly unsettling contours of real people created/recreated by these programs, virtual influencers, and people who drool over them, fake photographs, mass manipulations… and all the consequences that all this can create (and does create) in political and social terms.
CONCLUSION
n conclusion, let me say that I don’t consider myself “anti-AI”; on the contrary, I remain convinced that Artificial Intelligence could be a tremendous help in the development of global well-being that could bring peace and serenity to everyone, provided that it is used in specific areas and supported by a system that guarantees the lives of individuals.
AI is indeed a perfect human substitute for all those mechanical and repetitive activities that teach nothing and add nothing to people’s lives, such as factory work, provided that the system around us changes and reduces dependence on money, guaranteeing the right to a dignified life for every human being.
Particular attention must be paid to the areas of use, to ensure that it is not used in creative and educational fields, thus limiting individual and collective growth of people, and consequently, that of humanity itself.
Judgment becomes indispensable: it might indeed be right to use Artificial Intelligence such as Chat GPT, obviously with human input, in writing an article listing, for example, the top 5 antivirus programs available, which requires no creativity, but it should always be prohibited in writing a novel or poetry.
I am convinced that, just as many affirm, Artificial Intelligence is not inherently “evil” but can become “good” or “evil” depending on its use, and to date, the use that has been made of it has been solely negative, if not downright malicious, and its existence increasingly resembles the classic “pact with the devil” that promises to solve every problem in exchange for your soul but, in the end, takes your soul and worsens your life.
Without discernment and, above all, a system that supports existence detached from the money of each person, AI is solely and uniquely a detriment to humanity, and among people who regress day by day to the most bestial and selfish state of existence, its current use cannot be justified in any way except in the minds of those who, now totally conditioned by a rotten and sick system to its core, can only think in terms of:
“If it’s to my advantage, it’s right, if it’s to my disadvantage, it’s wrong.”
All the best,
Luca
