Meet the academics refusing to use generative AI
2026-05-14 20:03 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 2026-05-14 22:15
I have to imagine if I met any random academic, there is a good chance that would be the case
-
@tristynalxander@mander.xyz 2026-05-14 20:52
Coding landed on the right solution pretty early with this: Use whatever tools you want, but you're responsible for what you publish. I work on protein design, and generative AI for proteins is very capable of helping us make medicines, but if take some half baked garbage output and inject it into someone and they die, I'd still be held responsible. I have to filter out a lot of junk and test that the designed protein works the way they're supposed to work. I have to be responsible for my usage of AI. Same for anyone. If AI helps you re-phrase hard to parse sentences and you've verified the re-phrasing accurately describes what you're trying describe, then that's just making science is more accessible. If you're using it responsibly, that empowers the reader and the writer by enabling communication. I'm unimpressed by the anti-AI arguments, and I think they should be more honest. I grew up with online piracy arguing ideas can't be owned, so I'm unimpressed by the intellectual property arguments, and I seriously doubt the vast majority of people care about this. I'm sure artists care when they lose work, and I'm sure people who consume the art care when direct garbage output is used -- but be mad about that if that's what you're mad about. Be mad about CEOs who are willing to cut corners and produce shabby products using AI. Be mad about the capitalists incentives, and work to fix them instead of being mad when someone who'd've gone without has a good-enough picture. Also people have never cared about the environment and the impact of AI is vastly overstated. Running an existing model isn't any worse for the environment than gaming, and training them produces tools that can be useful as a coding package, like numpy for language. Are they bad for the environment? Yeah, everything is bad for the environment, but I didn't see this level of outrage about bitcoin and people still like to pretend plastics recycling works. There is not a meaningful portion of the population that cares about the environment, and anyone who does care knows I'm right. People aren't actually mad at AI as a tool. People are mad about shabby work and increased spam. People are mad at losing their job when some jackass CEO fires them and being stung along when they apply for a new job. I don't understand why we're taking this "it's the AI's fault" excuse seriously. The more we blame AI, the more legitimacy we give the stupid AI hype bubble, the stupid uses of AI, and the policy outcomes hiding behind AI. If we were brutally honest and insisted that AI has had little substantive effect on the economy (which is what the data actually says), CEOs and politicians would be forced to take responsibility and be held to account for their stupid decisions. Best I can tell, this anti-AI crap is a distraction and excuse not to talk about workers rights, education, and good democratic systems.