The Rise of Unremarkable AI Arguments

A recently published article titled "The Rise of AI Denialism" has been making the rounds lately and despite it lacking any real merit, I'm tired of seeing it being used as pro-AI fodder. The article is of course written by a CEO of an AI company. That's right, an AI CEO believes nobody is taking AI seriously enough. I'll admit that when I first came across it, I only read the first paragraph. This quote from the author (Louis Rosenberg) was enough hyperbole for me.

"These same voices overuse the phrase “AI slop” to disparage the remarkable images, documents, videos, and code that AI models produce at the touch of a button." - Louis Rosenberg

How dare us common folk disparage these "remarkable" AI-generated images, documents, videos and code? This one sentence frames up Rosenberg's argument; an accusation of denial, built on a refusal to see what he deems remarkable. He calls AI criticism "breathless claims from pundits and influencers." All of these opinions are in his words "both absurd and dangerous." He criticizes concerns that AI is a bubble, without examining any of the arguments. His argument against millions of people using the term AI slop is "you're wrong, it's really remarkable."

Why is every AI critic wrong? According to Rosenberg, it's because we're all entering the first stage of grief: denial. Rosenberg believes we're all afraid of AGI overtaking our "cognitive supremacy." No, we're afraid that people obsessed with AGI fantasies have lost their cognitive minds. Folks that push AGI narratives, should be viewed as a kind of science fiction cultist. Or more aptly, eugenicists that make money off defining what is intelligence and what is not. Supremacy indeed.

We're three paragraphs in so far, surely the red flags will subside and Rosenberg will flesh out a substantiative argument, right? Unfortunately not. He quotes every soulless capitalist's favorite author, Ayn Rand:

"Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon." - Ayn Rand

This is a passage from Rand’s The Fountainhead, where the protagonist (Howard Roark) goes on to espouse the virtues of selfishness and eviscerates altruism. To Rand, the heroic man is one that operates solely from self-interest, unburdened by the consequences of his creations. Ironically, AI bros are more second-handers (parasites as Rand calls them), than heroic men. Their “creations” depend on stealing from others, claiming it as their own. Tech billionaires, CEOs and capitalists love Rand because she tells them their selfishness is heroic.

Rosenberg goes on to say humans are the "superintelligent" species, that are now being outpaced by AI models that can "outthink us on all fronts" and "more creatively." What evidence does Rosenberg provide? Absolutely zero. His argument is that there is no proof that AI model won't eventually be more intelligent and creative. If this is feeling like a faith-based argument, it's because it is.

What of AI and creativity? Rosenberg cites that the primary argument against AI being creative, is that it lacks "inner motivation." He goes on to say that the outputted artifacts are what really matters, and he's certain that AI will outperform humans in this at "superhuman speed and scales." Someone with seemingly zero experience in art or creative fields, is certain that he deeply understands where it's value is derived from and also how easily it can be replaced by machines. Ironically, he links to a study On the creativity of large language models that points out that creativity is subjective, and based on the user's domain expertise. In other words, if you're not a creative you may be blown away with the outputs of an LLM and deem it very creative, while someone with expertise might disagree entirely.

Rosenberg goes on to speculate about how AI will overtake human emotional intelligence, because it will hypothetically be able to accurately understand micro-expressions? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the show Lie to Me, where the lead protagonist uses the study of human micro-expressions to solve crimes and bewilder the audience with his uncanny ability to uncover the motivations of the show's villains. That is however a fictional show. According to Rosenberg, its "very likely" that AI will soon be able to do this with uncanny accuracy. In Rosenberg's version of the near future, AI agents not only have these abilities, these agents will use them to influence us with superhuman skill.

"Like it or not, we will soon live in a world where many of the faces we encounter will be generative masks worn by AI agents. And yet, we tell ourselves that AI is just another tech boom. This is wishful thinking."
- Louis Rosenberg

This is a common tool of manipulation AI salesmen use; they tell stories about the potential dangers of AI, to demonstrate how powerful they could be, while simultaneously telling us there is nothing we can do to stop them. They tell us it's inevitable, and use authoritarian phrases that are intended to make us feel powerless. Rosenberg ends his article, urging us to stop our "denialism" because otherwise we won't be able to stop the risks.

He doesn't call for federal or state regulation.

He doesn't criticize how tech billionaires and our government are actively preventing regulation.

He doesn't mention the hundreds of thousands of people suffering from AI psychosis.

He doesn't mention the myriad of ways AI is already being weaponized against us.

He doesn't spare one paragraph examining WHY experts think AI is a bubble.

He doesn't concede that he is neither an artist or a psychologist.

He does link to his book, Our Next Reality: How the AI-powered Metaverse Will Reshape the World.

Rosenberg doesn't talk about how much consumers (and workers) hate AI. He doesn't mention how little ROI AI programs are driving or how few genuine discoveries it's been responsible for. He can't cite one single, major creative work generated by AI that is recognized as exemplary by the creative community. He can't even define what AGI is.

All this is to say, who exactly is in denial? When every prediction about AI and what it can do, is reserved for the future, how can we not call it for what it is? A fantasy, one that is being gripped tightly by businessmen intent on replacing labor, human friction and dissent. It's a religion of denialism, one that requires everyone to suspend reality and believe that trillions in investment will force this vision into existence.