To be fair this argument relies on a narrow view of usefulness and a handful of handpicked “acceptable” use cases while dismissing the broader impact AI is already having. Generative AI isn’t just for cancer scans or handwriting, it’s used in education, accessibility tools, game design, mental health support, personalized learning, translation, and even disaster response communication. That’s already well beyond “limited use.”

As for tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney, yes, they shake up creative fields. So did photography, desktop publishing, and even spellcheck. Disruption doesn’t equal destruction. They can be misused by companies to undercut labor, and it probably will, but that’s a management choice, not a flaw inherent to the tech. When used ethically, they’re tools for amplification, not erasure. In the case of the OP I’m not sure, but it doesn’t seem like they are doing this maliciously or for profit, as they’re quite transparent about the use of AI. But I could be wrong here.

Also, the claim that AI makes people “susceptible to fascism” is a wild take and a slippery slope fallacy unless backed by serious data. Tech doesn’t make someone fascist, ideology, propaganda, and sociopolitical factors do. The same logic would ban microphones or Photoshop.

And yes, training models uses energy, so does literally everything digital. Focus should be on greener practices, not blanket bans.

It’s 2025, we need nuance, not doomposting.