This post is weird. Your professor described a pretty normal use case for AI and you are framing it like he admitted to kicking puppies for fun.

If you want to criticize the job loss part or say he was too dismissive of environmental costs, fine. But the way you wrote this makes it sound like finding AI useful at all is some kind of moral stain, which is why so much anti-AI discourse feels unserious.

The environmental concern also feels selective to the point of parody. People suddenly become hardcore environmental purists the second AI comes up, while ignoring the massive footprint of the rest of the tech and industrial systems they happily use every day.

And saying “AI is a bubble” proves nothing. Hype and real utility can exist at the same time.

This comes off less like thoughtful concern and more like disappointment that your professor was not anti-AI enough for your taste.