For this to work, you have to state that AI has no flexibility. That is, essentially shifting the question to how accurately AI can execute arbitrary prompts, which, considering modern top models as gpt image v2 , is an extremely poor bet.
The mobile phone has replaced the maintenance and support work of those same landline phones on the streets. Phones have simplified the delivery of information, and therefore simplified all the bad things that can happen with information transfer. Mobile phones are a problem in classrooms because they make it easy to cheat. There are many options here. Any means of delivering information causes roughly the same type of harm, just in different forms and sizes.
There are quite a few people who are greatly irritated by AI artifacts, and I don't mean third leg, but rather the specific AI style and features of AI content. *Importantly, I'm not including content that is only marginally AI-driven with a significant amount of manual input, as I personally don't consider that content AI per se.*
And there are also those who don't care to a certain extent. Especially since AI is getting better at conveying information.
As a result, it turns out that pure low-effort AI content will simply become a unique genre.
You can create a dozen images in 10 minutes and post them all. That's essentially spam. This isn't to say AI art is necessarily pointless, but it's objectively much easier to flood your feed with AI art simply because it's so easy to use. Many places ban AI art for this very reason. So, a Discord server might ban AI art not because the art is bad, but because it easily becomes spam.
Simply by this definition, if a person loves only the end result, then he is excluded from being an art connoisseur.
The AI's accuracy is rather mediocre, and that's a problem. But what's with this strange aversion to materials where the AI's accuracy is sufficient?
AI can write an entire article on a topic, find a ton of related information in one go, and essentially create an entire analytical report on the topic... but no, of course, this is simply a replacement for search engines, searching for a single site, and not a replacement for a review article that collects 10 sites with links and connections.
You get a personal analyst for $25... This is essentially a huge achievement in itself. If you're digging deep into one topic, this probably won't help you. You wouldn't even hire analysts even if you had the money, since it's none of their business. However, reviews provide accessible information, a comprehensive search on related topics... This is very useful for research and also useful in everyday life. AI doesn't need a lot of specialized knowledge; there's already a wealth of information online, and all it takes is a step-by-step approach and a comprehensive overview of the experience of a situation that hundreds of people have already solved before you.
Ironically, this is what provokes a strong reaction among some in academia, based on my personal experience. Review articles and articles that simply added yet another approach to existing ones were usually used as stepping stones for graduate students to achieve a position in academia. People are also afraid that funding agencies, seeing that AI can perform some scientific work, will reduce funding, when this is essentially the simplest possible scientific work and therefore precisely the method used by graduate students.
It’s also simply not that important if we’re talking about deepening knowledge. However, it has scientific significance.
Even if AI is stopped at its current level, it's enough to disrupt the easy path for many graduate students to break through and provide a reason for those who want to further cut funding. GPT 5.5 thinking can already be called scientific AI, but it's not the most important part of science, which has most often been just a stepping stone.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2025-06/Ipsos-AI-Monitor-2025.pdf
The numbers may be small, but what the hell does "AI-driven content" even mean? Quite a few people wouldn't call AI content that because there's still a human in the loop. So, it's safe to say that 20% wouldn't mind content generated entirely by AI, even if it's not human-driven. That's a pretty big number for that.
Delicious food isn't essential; you really only need a set of nutrients that don't necessarily need to be tasty. Given the obesity "epidemic," people are simply eating more food than they need, even considering the waste of delicious food. Is travel even necessary within the US? You can easily live in one place without missing out on anything necessary. Moreover, you don't need to travel abroad. We can reduce the number of aircraft and cars. Museums and galleries are also sufficient for entertainment. Destroy all movie theaters and the entire internet. This is all simply for convenience; it's not necessary. While you can argue about how much art is necessary for a healthy psyche, I think you'll agree that most Hollywood films aren't necessary for the psyche. You can walk in the park and unwind. Really, the question of the need for AI is frivolous because, by the same logic, we should reduce a huge amount of everything, including what you enjoy, like video games. Phones are also not necessary. Long-distance communication is only optional; humanity survived long before the telephone. Come on, guys, this isn't a serious approach.
https://notes.archie-hall.com/p/am-i-a-writing-luddite
The author clearly shows that his problems with AI apply to more than just AI. He also points out where he thinks mistakes are possible. If all anti-AI were as critical of their own ideas, that would be really cool.
AI detectors aren't precise, but their "biological analogs" aren't either. Are you not going to ban people from doing any AI testing? That's their personal judgment and their right. If this is used for evaluation at universities, then if you're untrue and a student is expelled, you could essentially ruin that person's life. This isn't just a personal assessment. However, this is precisely why it's not simply a question of "AI detectors being bad." If using AI is part of the evaluation (prohibited), you need to verify it somehow. Without AI detectors, do you want to rely on the examiner's vision alone? It's no better. However, does this justify the AI detector's errors? No. Essentially, the only way to avoid this problem is to allow AI, but that in itself is a problem.
Most people really do use AI as a replacement for an artist, and that's the whole point. In fact, most people don't even post theirs AI at all.