The Worst Thing About AI Is That People Can’t Shut Up About It
I tried it come out of this assignment so many times, in so many different ways.
Not every package needs an editorial letter, I told them. I was very busy recording a new podcast, getting ready to speak at a tech conference, eating and sleeping, parenting, doodling, editing my to-do list, redoing my school laces. I did my best, I tried to convey to my editor. To be honest, my method of communication was subtle; I simply stopped responding to his emails, imagining that I could exist on a spectral plane where AI wasn't shoved down my throat every minute of every day.
Like so many men before him, he didn't get it. “Don't think of it as a letter to the editor,” he wrote. “Think of it as a short article for the AI pack! I know you're not interested in WIRED with an AI manifesto.”
He is right. i don't Here's why: In July 2023, when I interviewed for this job, every person involved in the process asked me how I would cover AI. Since then, I have been inundated – completely drowning, water running into the nostrils and flooding the lungs – with questions about my position on the technology. Comms and PR professionals would like to know. The organizer of every major conference that happens anywhere on planet Earth is interesting. My father has questions. So does David Remnick. Every other journalist has asked too, which is yet another reason on the very long list of reasons I can't go to any industry parties now or ever. My neighbor? Wonders about the AI apocalypse. My dermatologist? Has a new AI diagnostic tool that she would like my two cents on. My dogs? GPT curious.
Fortunately, there are living beings who don't want my opinion on AI. My husband is too busy making AI-generated movies on his phone to care what his wife, who is constantly yelling at him to get off his phone, thinks about AI in the context of her job. And the staff at WIRED, thank God, implicitly understand the same thing about AI that I do: The technology has been around for decades and iterates and evolves; this special moment of AI fanaticism refers specifically to the deep-learning approach of training AI models on huge reams of data. Yes, it can seem technically intimidating. But it is, really, not that deep. Unless you can handle the intoxicating stream of hype spewed out by visionary tech marketers like Sam Altman and Dario Amodi, in which case why are you even reading this? Go to the bunker!
The fact is, AI is not a new invention. It is not a mythical solver of all problems or the great destroyer of worlds (and jobs) that we have been warned about. It's incredibly expensive and resource-draining to train, deploy, and commercialize, then rinse-rinse-repeat with more data, new models, more promises, new warnings, and so on. Generative AI is genuinely useful in some contexts, profoundly useless in others, and decidedly unproven in most. It is situation dependent. It is not a monolith. A growing number of signs indicate that it is a economic bubble. That bubble burst can be temporarily catastrophic; fascinating and consequential facets of AI technology will exist and continue to shape certain parts of our lives after it does. There is a “there there” in it. But let's stop trying to make it a thing with email. We should all just write our own emails. Yes, this is the “take” you've all been waiting for.
As for journalism? Is generative AI poised to demolish our industry, dismissing the human-led craft of news-gathering and storytelling? That depends on who you ask. If you ask Google, they will assure you that sending traffic and revenue to publishers in the interest of spreading accurate information has never been more important. Then they will introduce AI-infused features to the great detriment of their search product and the publications they have accelerated in a decades-long abusive relationship. At this point for publishers, escaping Google means either taking a big haircut or shutting down entirely. Meta and Mark Zuckerberg have a different take. After pulling out rug after rug from under the news company in recent years, financially bending publishers around the world and turning Facebook into a Shrimp Jesus convention for your Republican aunts and Threads into an apolitical social media network that I haven't thought about in a year, the company created a “feed of expressive AI-generated videos from artists and creators.” So slop, basically. Total shit, pretty much. And it can't even do that half as well Sora from OpenAI does.
At WIRED, we will sometimes use AI. In the coming years, AI may help us do some copy editing. We already use it for (carefully controlled) research and brainstorming with the automated equivalent of a rather stupid intern. Of course, machine learning technology that predates this moment has always been useful for investigative reporting. But discovering and communicating new and interesting information? Landing on the turn of phrase that says exactly what you want, so damn nice? The illustration that just makes you ~*chef's kiss*~ in a team meeting because you can't wait for the issue to print and the world to go (at least the world of people who still subscribe for print) see what you're doing? That is human work, by people and for them. Using technology to augment that work, where it makes sense, and avoiding it where it doesn't. That is what we do, and it is what we will do.
My advice to WIRED readers is to keep an open mind. You need to learn about AI right now, and learn how to use some of the tools you keep hearing about. Get the basics, and expand on that if you find it interesting or useful. Whatever you do, don't become friends with AI or have cybersex with. For the love of God, we all have enough problems. Make sure you still have children human teachers. And then please relax. The world is always changing; technology did not start with ChatGPT. The worst thing about AI might be the fact that we can't stop talking about it.
I could go on, but I really need to run. As I said: Every package does not need an editorial letter, and I have a mole on my back that I need a human opinion on.
