I keep seeing more and more discussions on some open-source project forums (which I won’t name ! I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader) where people react very strongly to the fact that some code was written, entirely or partly, with the help of AI, and that’s a euphemism.
And it leads me to a fairly fundamental question: why does the use of AI change our perception of the result so much?
Let’s take 3 hypothetical situations that already existed long before generative AI became widely available:
- I know nothing about software development, but I have an idea for an application. I contact some developers, explain precisely what I want, they build it and, after several discussions and adjustments, the application eventually works and maybe even becomes successful. Does the fact that I didn’t write the code myself take anything away from my idea or from the result ?
- I am not particularly good at writing administrative or official letters. I need to send an important formal letter, so I contact a lawyer, explain the situation and ask them to write the letter for me. Does the letter somehow lose its value because I didn’t write it myself ?
- I need to translate a letter into a language I do not speak. So I contact a translator, give them my text and ask them to translate it for me. Is the translation somehow less valid because I didn’t do it myself ?
The same situations, with a different tool#
Now, let’s transpose these situations into the current AI era.
- For my application, I can ask an AI to produce a first draft of an app. It will most probably not be perfect, but I can test it, modify it myself, ask for corrections and improve it through successive iterations.
- For my letter, I can provide the context, the facts and what I want to say, and then ask an AI to help me formulate it properly, in a given style.
- For the translation, I can also use an AI, give it the text, the context and the tone I want, and then review and correct the result afterwards.
In all 3 cases, the “tool” changes, but the principle seems, at least partly, quite similar to me: I rely on a skill that I do not necessarily have myself in order to turn something into a concrete result.
However, the tool is not the only thing that changes. The level of expertise, the relationship of trust and the way responsibility is assigned also change. A human professional can explain their choices, point out ambiguities and be held accountable for their work. As of today, an AI cannot do any of those things. The person using it remains responsible for understanding, verifying and maintaining the result.
Why does AI trigger stronger reactions ?#
So why does the result often seem to be perceived much more negatively when that assistance comes from an AI rather than from a human ? Would that perception be different if the AI tools were open source and ran locally ? Would the perception also be different if no AI usage were disclosed ? If so, would disclosure be necessary to avoid misleading people, or would it simply invite allegations of all kind ?
In short, I often have the feeling that the focus shifts away from the actual result towards the way that result was produced. The “how” seems to become more important than the “what”, meaning the result itself.
And this difference in perception is exactly what I am trying to understand.
Is it a matter of trust ? Responsibility ? Intellectual property ? Quality ? Transparency ? The fact that AI can produce things much faster and at a much larger scale ? The fact that there isn’t really an identifiable human author who can be held responsible for it ? Or simply because we give a different value to a result depending on whether it was produced by a human or with the help of a machine ?
But are these really the reasons that fuel the anger and indignation I see online ? Or are they sometimes only the arguments used afterwards to justify a much stronger, more instinctive reaction ?
Of course, we can also question how many people may see their jobs affected by AI. But in my view, that discussion goes beyond the scope of this post. Automation and productivity gains have accompanied many technological changes over time. Some had negative social consequences or made certain jobs disappear and others changed existing professions, created new skills and gave birth to jobs that simply didn’t exist before.
There are also other important considerations that I am deliberately setting aside here: ethical and ecological concerns, the non-deterministic nature of AI-generated results (even though it has been announced 2 years ago ), the sense of pride or loss of pride associated with making something oneself, the value of craft, the sheer hugeness of the systems involved, and questions of solidarity. These considerations matter to me personally, and I do not mean to minimise them. I am setting them aside only to focus on the narrower question of why the use of AI can trigger such strong reactions, even when the result itself is what is being discussed.
So this is genuinely an open question I keep asking myself, especially when I see the amount of time and energy spent arguing about the use of AI, sometimes to the point of making accusations or assumptions that, to me, seem to have very little evidence behind them.
I am not trying to defend anyone, nor to defend AI, nor to minimise the problems it may create. I am also not trying to say that asking a human for help and using an AI are equivalent, do not misunderstand me !
Quite the opposite: it is precisely the difference between these situations that I am trying to understand.
I am not asking where the fundamental difference objectively lies, as if the answer were obvious or as if these situations were strictly equivalent. I am wondering whether the reasons listed above genuinely explain the strength of the reactions I observe.
Where and when does AI become problematic ?#
My current suspicion is that the real dividing line is not whether AI was used, but whether the person presenting the result can understand it, verify it and take responsibility for it. And more importantly: at what point does the use of AI actually become problematic ?
Please feel free to leave a comment below and keep the discussion constructive, please.
