A technology writer argues that people working in tech should engage deeply with AI rather than refuse to use it, despite documented harms in training and deployment.
She contends that understanding and shaping a powerful tool from within is more effective and morally responsible than disengagement, and that many concerns critics raise about AI are not unique to AI but existing problems made worse.
What happened
A technology writer argues against the position that awareness of AI's harms—including training on unlicensed data, labor exploitation, and risks like delegating decisions about incarceration or warfare—should lead people to refuse engagement with AI systems.
Why it matters
The author contends that learning to govern a tool requires using it and understanding it well enough to critique and shape it. For people in technology, she suggests that unilateral disavowal is ineffective; instead, becoming informed experts and participating in building the next generation of technology is a moral responsibility.
What to watch
The author catalogs two categories of documented harms—those in creation (unlicensed training, data-labeling labor exploitation) and those enabled by use (misinformation, attribution problems, energy and water costs)—and frames responsible engagement as the path to addressing them rather than avoidance.
Ask the AI about this article →
For example, today's edition would include:
AI-summarized, only the topics you pick — one digest a day via Email, Slack, or Discord.
Free · takes 30 seconds · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →
Ask AI anything about this article. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.
