Really fantastic essay! Has synthesised a lot of my thoughts I have on AI better than I could myself. I work in tech and get asked a lot about my feelings on AI, I'm just going to send them this instead from now on.
Yeah that's a hard disagree from me on a lot of that. The "no ethical consumption under capitalism" point gets trotted out periodically for a lot of things, but while regulatory action is the most effective route to remedy things like the ills of AI, individual choices do matter.
There are very strong arguments for a full-abstinence approach. The most obvious one is that, as the author points out, that it's very possible to NOT use it and to still accomplish the same things.
If you need to do some recipe conversions and your options are a) not using AI and doing the conversion like you used to, pre-AI, and b) using AI and thereby supporting/training the environmentally- and ethically-problematic tool, I really can't fathom why you'd choose option B.
At a certain point, we have to have a moral compass as individuals, and just throwing our hands in the air, gesturing at systemic problems with every aspect of society/food production, and sort of excusing ourselves of culpability is...a very weird stance for any food writer or creative in this field to take.
I normally love her thoughtful writing but I was incredibly frustrated reading this essay.
You perfectly put into words my exact thoughts. Yes, systemic issues ARE real and undeniable, but very often these systems are responsive to every individual's actions and if enough people succumb to the nihilistic, thought-ending cliche of "no ethical consumption under capitalism" then there really is no hope. Individual actions can and often do lead to systemic changes. Sacrificing even just the tiniest bit of personal comfort and convenience for the greater good is a virtue I will always admire and the overall sentiment of this article leaves much to be desired.
Edited to add: It doesn't sit right with me to complain about your potential obsolescence if you're being complicit in it by using the tools that have the potential to make your fears a reality.
Thanks for reading, and for this thoughtful response!
What I was hoping to convey with the comparison to agriculture is not “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, but rather - ethical consumption under capitalism is incredibly difficult. I have noticed we tend to allow for a lot more nuance and compassion for individual choices when we are considering how best to ethically and sustainably navigate our food choices, and that similar conversations around AI tend to collapse into black and white thinking. As I mention in the essay, I have experienced firsthand a positive, transformative use of generative AI (the voice banking) which has led me to consider that this technology is not just one thing, but rather a diverse set of tools. I am very much for pro-regulation when it comes to AI (and our food systems, for that matter).
So, umm, there IS a difference between using AI to generate slop pictures for your own enjoyment and using strawberries in a recipe, even if they both use water.
What a tired attempt of diminishing the implications of our personal actions. Just because we can't be perfect does not ever mean that we shouldn't try to be better.
The lack of awareness that you complain about can be found in your own words, such as the use of the word lame as a derivative; ableist thoughts beget ableist actions.
I don’t think she’s reducing the implications of anyone’s actions let alone her own, I think she’s laying oit the facts and effects of using chatGPT and AI plainly and how lots of people use it with abandon.
I had never heard of or considered that word to be ableist and appreciate the learning moment, thank you, corrected. On a similar note, this is same thing I do when learning about the many environmental and ethical implications of things like AI - if it's something simple to cut out of my life that might make the world a little bit better, I'm going to do it.
I think there's a bit of false equivalence here with 'AI uses resources, but so does agriculture', and 'AI has preserved the sound of a family member's voice, so I feel like it can't be that bad'. (In that example, I wonder what are the limits of interacting with that family member's voice are - if you have the files, offline, or it's tied to the use of an online subscription service that will exist for a period of years, then disappear. My heart goes out to you, and to your family member who has an autoimmune condition. I know what the grief of losing function is like.)
For agriculture, my own position now is that it's more powerful to engage with alternatives-to, rather than abstaining-from. eg I was vegan for a long, long time, and now will occasionally eat meat if it comes from a local farm, because I know the animals, the land, the farmers and their practices. This extends to where I get produce from. I don't support industrial agriculture, so I don't give my money to it, as much as is possible given my physical location, how much money I have, etc. This builds community rather than taking away from it. This brings me back to AI! It is possible to abstain from AI BY using alternatives-to, if you get me. I note in my ingredients spreadsheet how much a cup of whatever weighs, so now I have that information. Is it a few minutes slower to convert a recipe than getting Mr Computer to do it for me? Hell yeah. Do I know it's right for my ingredients and not some random machine mistake? Also yes. Do I opt out of AI stuff if it's in my word processing document or search? Yes, I do. Anyway, I am rambling, thank you for engaging thoughtfully with the issue, I appreciate both your writing and your cake work.
Really fantastic essay! Has synthesised a lot of my thoughts I have on AI better than I could myself. I work in tech and get asked a lot about my feelings on AI, I'm just going to send them this instead from now on.
Yeah that's a hard disagree from me on a lot of that. The "no ethical consumption under capitalism" point gets trotted out periodically for a lot of things, but while regulatory action is the most effective route to remedy things like the ills of AI, individual choices do matter.
There are very strong arguments for a full-abstinence approach. The most obvious one is that, as the author points out, that it's very possible to NOT use it and to still accomplish the same things.
If you need to do some recipe conversions and your options are a) not using AI and doing the conversion like you used to, pre-AI, and b) using AI and thereby supporting/training the environmentally- and ethically-problematic tool, I really can't fathom why you'd choose option B.
At a certain point, we have to have a moral compass as individuals, and just throwing our hands in the air, gesturing at systemic problems with every aspect of society/food production, and sort of excusing ourselves of culpability is...a very weird stance for any food writer or creative in this field to take.
I normally love her thoughtful writing but I was incredibly frustrated reading this essay.
You perfectly put into words my exact thoughts. Yes, systemic issues ARE real and undeniable, but very often these systems are responsive to every individual's actions and if enough people succumb to the nihilistic, thought-ending cliche of "no ethical consumption under capitalism" then there really is no hope. Individual actions can and often do lead to systemic changes. Sacrificing even just the tiniest bit of personal comfort and convenience for the greater good is a virtue I will always admire and the overall sentiment of this article leaves much to be desired.
Edited to add: It doesn't sit right with me to complain about your potential obsolescence if you're being complicit in it by using the tools that have the potential to make your fears a reality.
Thanks for reading, and for this thoughtful response!
What I was hoping to convey with the comparison to agriculture is not “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, but rather - ethical consumption under capitalism is incredibly difficult. I have noticed we tend to allow for a lot more nuance and compassion for individual choices when we are considering how best to ethically and sustainably navigate our food choices, and that similar conversations around AI tend to collapse into black and white thinking. As I mention in the essay, I have experienced firsthand a positive, transformative use of generative AI (the voice banking) which has led me to consider that this technology is not just one thing, but rather a diverse set of tools. I am very much for pro-regulation when it comes to AI (and our food systems, for that matter).
So, umm, there IS a difference between using AI to generate slop pictures for your own enjoyment and using strawberries in a recipe, even if they both use water.
What a tired attempt of diminishing the implications of our personal actions. Just because we can't be perfect does not ever mean that we shouldn't try to be better.
The lack of awareness that you complain about can be found in your own words, such as the use of the word lame as a derivative; ableist thoughts beget ableist actions.
I don’t think she’s reducing the implications of anyone’s actions let alone her own, I think she’s laying oit the facts and effects of using chatGPT and AI plainly and how lots of people use it with abandon.
I had never heard of or considered that word to be ableist and appreciate the learning moment, thank you, corrected. On a similar note, this is same thing I do when learning about the many environmental and ethical implications of things like AI - if it's something simple to cut out of my life that might make the world a little bit better, I'm going to do it.
I think there's a bit of false equivalence here with 'AI uses resources, but so does agriculture', and 'AI has preserved the sound of a family member's voice, so I feel like it can't be that bad'. (In that example, I wonder what are the limits of interacting with that family member's voice are - if you have the files, offline, or it's tied to the use of an online subscription service that will exist for a period of years, then disappear. My heart goes out to you, and to your family member who has an autoimmune condition. I know what the grief of losing function is like.)
For agriculture, my own position now is that it's more powerful to engage with alternatives-to, rather than abstaining-from. eg I was vegan for a long, long time, and now will occasionally eat meat if it comes from a local farm, because I know the animals, the land, the farmers and their practices. This extends to where I get produce from. I don't support industrial agriculture, so I don't give my money to it, as much as is possible given my physical location, how much money I have, etc. This builds community rather than taking away from it. This brings me back to AI! It is possible to abstain from AI BY using alternatives-to, if you get me. I note in my ingredients spreadsheet how much a cup of whatever weighs, so now I have that information. Is it a few minutes slower to convert a recipe than getting Mr Computer to do it for me? Hell yeah. Do I know it's right for my ingredients and not some random machine mistake? Also yes. Do I opt out of AI stuff if it's in my word processing document or search? Yes, I do. Anyway, I am rambling, thank you for engaging thoughtfully with the issue, I appreciate both your writing and your cake work.
Lots to consider here, thanks for writing