Key Takeaways
- The author acknowledges personal reliance on AI tools (voice‑to‑text, Grammarly, photo‑editing presets) for practical assistance rather than rejection of the technology.
- He criticizes the marketing and deployment of AI, arguing it is sold as an inevitable replacement for human work while exacerbating social inequities.
- Concerns include the environmental and community impact of massive data centers, the pressure on workers to accept job losses, and the erosion of disciplined learning and creativity among younger generations.
- The piece concludes with a call for a more honest, humble “sales pitch” for AI—one that recognizes its limits and the continued value of human effort.
A Personal Relationship with AI
“I don’t hate artificial intelligence.” Terry Manning opens his column with that blunt declaration, immediately noting that his social‑media feed might suggest otherwise. He explains that he regularly shares critiques of AI’s effect on cognition and creativity, yet he also relies on the technology daily. From voice‑recognition software that helps him overcome his slow hunt‑and‑peck typing to Grammarly’s error‑checking, Manning treats AI as a helper, not a replacement. He even credits a former boss who earned a Ph.D. and became a crime novelist without ever learning conventional typing, underscoring that skill gaps can be bridged in other ways.
AI as a Writing Aid
Manning describes his writing process as “a drawn‑out process, the speed of which is dictated by my inability to type worth a darn.” He explains that he uses voice recognition on his laptop to move toward completion, then reviews and edits the output. “I still have to review everything, but that one little assist can make a big difference between finishing now or having to come back after I do my laundry,” he writes. The tool does not rewrite his thoughts; it merely transcribes them, allowing his voice to remain central while easing the mechanical burden of typing.
Grammarly and the Value of Gentle Corrections
Unlike some AI writing assistants that propose sweeping rewrites, Manning appreciates Grammarly because “it points out my mistakes without suggesting wholesale rewrites of what I am trying to communicate.” He quotes the software’s limited impact in his own work: “p.s. Grammarly found only one mistake. Gold star for Terry!” This endorsement highlights his preference for tools that support, rather than override, his authorial intent.
Photo Editing: Darkroom Ethics Meets AI Convenience
When it comes to his photography, Manning adheres to a darkroom‑inspired philosophy: he only does in Adobe Photoshop what he could have done with traditional techniques—cropping, exposure adjustments, dodging and burning. Yet he concedes that AI‑driven features speed up tedious tasks. “I can still manually select a texture from one part of a photo to cover up an unwanted intrusion in another, but it is a lot quicker to let A.I. tools do some of that for me.” He also notes the limits of automatic presets, observing that Lightroom’s “Enhance Portrait” setting sometimes makes subjects with nice teeth look like they are wearing cheap dentures, a reminder that human judgment remains essential.
Voice Assistants for Trivia and Trivial Tasks
Beyond writing and images, Manning uses AI for quick factual retrieval. He praises Alexa for instantly telling him that WNBA player Satou Sabally played college basketball at the University of Oregon and that she shaved her head in solidarity with a loved one undergoing cancer treatment. He jestingly remarks that Siri “was behind the door, as my mother likes to say, when they were giving out advanced skills at virtual assistant school,” acknowledging its modest utility for timers and directions while conceding it falls far short of navigation apps like Waze.
The Discomfort with AI’s Narrative
Despite his practical use, Manning’s frustration surfaces when discussing how AI is marketed and sold to the public. “I hate how it’s being sold to us, as if making caricatures of ourselves on Facebook doesn’t have the same environmental impact as scientists trying to battle HIV or world hunger.” This quote captures his belief that the hype surrounding AI distracts from genuine societal challenges and inflates the technology’s perceived indispensability.
Data Centers and Environmental Justice
He directs particular ire at the placement of massive data centers, which he claims are “being forced on communities populated mostly by minorities and poor white people.” Manning argues that these facilities consume vast amounts of electricity and water, often without adequate benefit to the local populace, reinforcing patterns of environmental inequity. His critique aligns with broader concerns about the carbon footprint of AI infrastructure and the need for equitable siting decisions.
AI as a Pretext for Job Losses
The columnist also condemns the narrative that AI will simply replace human labor, enabling corporations to lay off workers without consequence. “I hate how billionaires try to convince us it is a replacement for human productivity, so it’s OK for the billionaires to lay off hundreds of thousands of real people from real jobs they really need.” By highlighting the human cost behind automation, Manning challenges the notion that technological advancement automatically justifies workforce reduction.
Cultural Impact on Learning and Creativity
Manning worries that younger generations are abandoning the discipline required for deep reading, learning, and creative expression in favor of instant AI‑generated answers. “I hate how young people are giving up embracing the discipline it takes to read and learn and create and share their unique perspectives on the world.” He warns that overreliance on AI could atrophy critical thinking and diminish the richness of personal voice—a sentiment echoed throughout his earlier anecdotes about his own slow, deliberate writing process.
The Myth of Inevitability
Finally, he pushes back against the idea that AI’s trajectory is immutable. “I hate we are told all this is inevitable, and there is no going back. Nothing is inevitable in life except death, which is a terrible association to make for something you want people to like.” This statement encapsulates his call for a more honest dialogue about AI—one that recognizes alternatives, demands accountability, and resists the fatalistic framing often pushed by tech evangelists.
Conclusion: A Pitch for Humility
Manning closes with a sardonic suggestion: perhaps the AI industry should ask the technology itself for a better sales pitch. His column ultimately advocates for a balanced stance—utilizing AI where it genuinely aids human effort while scrutinizing its broader social, environmental, and ethical implications. By weaving personal experience with pointed criticism, he offers a journalist’s‑style reflection that is both appreciative of AI’s utility and wary of its unchecked proliferation.