Why not use AI?

We don’t have access to the algorithms generative AI platforms use, so insofar as we know, they work like glorified search engines, searching the web, collecting information, and looking for common patterns*.  The result almost certainly reflects some median consensus of the loudest or most common voices on the internet, rather than the most expert or well-informed.  When generative AI is used for artistic works, the result is often loaded with tropes and termed “AI slop.”  Why should the written output of generative AI be any different?

Why not use generative AI?  Much of what we do in academia, and any career path in general, involves implicit claims about exceptionality.  If I submit a manuscript to a journal for consideration, I am making the implicit claim that my manuscript stands above the other hundreds of manuscripts the journal editor has received.  If I ask my supervisor for a raise or promotion, I am making the implicit claim that my work stands above and beyond that expected of my present situation.  But if I cannot do my work without generative AI, then I am making the implicit argument that my thoughts and my work are no better than some median consensus.

*I should be careful to make a distinction.  There are some tools, such as hill-climbing learning algorithms and various analytical tools, that arguably share some qualities with generative AI, and they, like pocket calculators, have immense utility for solving complex problems that would be too time- or resource- intensive for humans to solve unaided.  In such cases, these devices are not a substitute for the human mind; rather, they extend its capabilities.  Such uses of “artificial intelligence” seem distinct from uses in which algorithms are being used to accomplish tasks perfectly within the abilities of the human mind.

---