The voice in my head is whining. Asking if I’m sure I really want to wade in and write about this topic. Because it’s one of those polarizing topics of our time. People coming at you online with pitchforks is a thing. Sigh.
I’m talking about AI, of course.
But look... I write about what’s caught my attention, right? And this one particular discussion of AI did lodge itself in my head. So here we go.
I was listening to the Sustainable Ambition podcast, hosted by Kathy Oneto, and her recent guest was anthropologist Dr. Adam Russell (previously of DARPA).
The conversation wasn’t only about AI, but a good chunk of it was. And there’s this bit Russell said that, when I heard it, it was like a flashlight in the wilderness. (Really, Lou, such melodrama.)
Think about it, he says, as a question between being on a construction site versus being in the gym. (Paraphrasing here.)
If you’re a carpenter on a construction site, you want the best tools to help you with your work. A power saw. A power screwdriver. A power... whatever. I know nothing about construction. But if you’ve ever been to Lowe’s, you can imagine a variety of these muscled tools. You want powerful tools to help you cut, lift, bend, attach... in the most efficient and precise way possible.
Now, think about you in a gym. Running on that treadmill, lifting those weights — that’s the work. That’s the whole point of going to the gym. Using a tool to lift those dumbbells isn’t going to help build your muscles. Having iRobot finish an impressive route on the Peloton bike for you isn’t going to do anything for your heart. You doing the work is the whole point.
Russell says this is how humans need to think about and approach AI. We need to ask ourselves, are we on a construction site, or are we in the gym?
• • •
David Perell: “Have you written with AI at all?”
Yann Martel (author of Life of Pi): “No.”
David Perell: “Why not?”
Yann Martel: “Cause why would I? It’ll be like hiring someone to have sex for you.”1
Know what? I’m with Martel.
• • •
For better or worse, I self-identify as a writer these days. So sweating it out and grappling with the words to come up with something halfway decent, is gym work for me.
Having the AI2 write for me makes no sense because the work is the writing. Producing wonderful prose isn’t what I’m trying to accomplish. Figuring out how to put words around what’s in my head — developing my writing muscle — is.
I don’t outsource the writing because it doesn’t make sense for me to do so. It’s just logic.
Having said that, there are parts of my “job” where I use the AI as an assistant. Coming up with ideas for titles, for example. I’m lousy at that task, and do not necessarily want or need to get better at it. So, I ask the AI to give me suggestions. I feel zero guilt using the machine for this task.
I also ask the AI to help me draft the short blurb that shows up in Google search results. Again, zero guilt. I don’t see coming up this 150-160 character meta description as something I need to become an expert at.
Some who read those two things I use AI for may violently disagree. I understand. But I’m not losing sleep over it. No guilty conscience here whatsoever.
• • •
This does not mean I am entirely at ease with the rise of AI, though. I am miserably conflicted about it.
Russell may have given me a metaphor that helps me explain why I use this technology the way that I do. Deciding whether I’m in the gym or on a construction site tells me when to use it. But it cannot explain away my discomfort with what it’s doing in the world. It doesn’t help me swallow the data centers, the massive layoffs, graduates entering a transformed labor market.
Like I said, I’m conflicted.
But maybe I can find consolation with F. Scott Fitzgerald. “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” (Not to mention getting to consider myself a first-rate intelligence. LOL)
• • •
Fitzgerald’s wisdom aside, I am uncomfortable with my contradiction.
I am disturbed by what this technology is doing in the world. And I use it anyway.
You know, being able to hold contradictory ideas may be a sign of intelligence (ahem), but it doesn’t absolve us of having to live inside the contradiction.
This essay really didn’t end up where I thought it would. Dang it.
[Funny, I think I accidentally proved to myself why I don’t use AI to write. I had to wrestle with these thoughts in my head — do the gym work — to find out what this essay is really about. Huh.]
✴️ I’d love to hear from you:
What’s something you’ve realized is “gym work” for you — something where doing the work yourself is the whole point?
Talk soon,
Lou
Lou Blaser exchanged PowerPoint decks for essays and has yet to regret the trade. She writes Shaping Life, where she follows her curiosity through books, conversations, films, and whatever else refuses to leave her alone.
Thank you for reading. If you’re enjoying Shaping Life, consider becoming a supporting subscriber or sharing it with someone who might enjoy it too.
Heard on the How I Write podcast, hosted by David Perell.
I know referring to it as “the AI” makes me sound like grandma. I say it that way as a reminder to myself that it’s a tool. I made the mistake of anthropomorphizing AI early on — giving it a name and everything. I’ve stopped doing that now.
Love this, Lou. I am also terribly conflicted over using AI. I use it like a tool as you’ve described (Frankly, it is hard to avoid at this point as it seems to be in every online platform I use for my business.), but I really hope we can reign in the over investment in data centers and hold the AI companies feet to the fire about the water usage.
I loved this post. More later. I've subscribed thanks to Susan Tweit.