One of the worst approaches to discussing artificial intelligence is by berating, harassing, or trying to cancel others, as it does nothing to help your cause or those affected by artificial intelligence. Do I expect everyone to embrace AI? Absolutely not. What I believe is that we need to adapt to these new tools as corporations undoubtedly shift to finding more people who can humanely augment their productivity through artificial intelligence.

For bloggers—because that’s literally what I am, just a blogger in 2025 blogging—artificial intelligence is essentially a tool for generating thumbnail images or creating themed visuals for posts. It doesn’t really offer us much beyond that. Whether you’re on Blogger, WordPress.com, TypePad, LiveJournal (if that’s even still around), or anything in between, the bigger players are still the corporations.

Having said that, workers absolutely need better protection against corporations trying to offload all their workload to artificial intelligence. There’s no doubt that there are many things that can be automated in 2025. The acceleration of these LLMs is inevitable. Artificial intelligence isn’t going to go away, and I’d like for people to realize that harassment and attacks are at times misguided. In truth, if your first reaction to something is to attack or harass, then I feel we devolve into these primitive human beings whose only option is to yell or shout at each other for using something we don’t agree with.

Yet, the internet is unrelenting. Once it focuses on AI they will stay laser focused on anyone who dares to adopt the technology, and most of the people impacted by this targeted harassment are normally individuals, maybe small studios trying to make do and finish their projects. Corporations themselves couldn’t really care about it.

Eventually there will come a point in time where, if there are no regulations on artificial intelligence, more than just that current vocal minority will start pouring in for regulations and protections against being replaced by AI.

I don’t advocate for LLMs, which in my opinion aren’t true artificial intelligence. I strongly believe any human being deserves a shot to have an opportunity to be hired. My question to corporations: if you were to lay off 80-90% of your employees across the board, who exactly would be your customers at the end of the day? There are only so many contracts one could do with the government or business to business. AI is just not going to be this miracle tool that creates income—there has to be an economy to back it up.

At some point, at the peak of this artificial intelligence, if a nation doesn’t protect human labor then what happens to the economy? No one will buy because no one is hiring, as it was all shifted to AI; there’s just no money. I don’t want this dystopian future where corporations in all their wisdom cut so deep that it puts the middle and lower class behind decades of growth.

Unless by some miracle governments decide to enact universal basic income for everyone. But then… what makes a country rich if most of the population are in that sort of program? Where’s the labor force? How would we export our labor to other countries directly or indirectly? For a first world country, the thought of exporting human labor to other countries not only feels absolutely wrong, but also begs the question of why they would be a first world country if it has started to rot, or devolve into this.

Artificial intelligence, if used correctly, was meant to help us accelerate our growth, understanding, and fill the gaps of the curious minds. It is not meant to be a replacement for a real teacher. Yes, there are bad teachers who don’t fit the bill when it comes to teaching, and by that I mean breaking things into simple, digestible chunks for their audience to learn. Here’s the pitfall: the current LLM (what is being called AI) models hallucinate the answers when they misinterpret, or don’t understand, the question. A teacher can, and will if diligent enough, teach our kids without making things up along the way.

There’s no doubt that people saw the writing on the wall when artificial intelligence was unleashed upon us. Yes, it will cause turmoil in the job market and that was expected. The thing that we need to be proactive about is reaching out to our representatives for regulations and protections.

And yet, the way I see it, artificial intelligence is still in diapers regardless of how amazing it is at the moment. Can companies successfully make artificial intelligence replace a human being at work? Well, let’s think about the costs and infrastructure first before that. Right now there’s not a whole lot of competition, meaning every five to ten years, maybe, there will be more AI companies. The thing is, how much does it cost to actually run all the infrastructure, and how viable is it to replace someone you can reason with?

Think about it this way: right now a lot of corporations are seeing artificial intelligence as a way to cut through costs. There’s actually a huge barrier: not many LLM, if any, models can be reasoned with. Imagine someone writes a flawed prompt; the model will likely produce a wrong answer, and keep repeating it without realizing the mistake.

A human, however, you can talk to, you can reason with, and you can simply just lay out the foundation of the problem. And that person will go around to solving this problem for you because they understand that not everything is black and white. Problems often involve multiple layers, but current AI tends to perceive only the surface—not the deeper, underlying issues.

What I mean is that the current limitations of artificial intelligence are that it will never fully possess the perception, intuition, or troubleshooting skills of a real human being.

Thinking about canceling people has become a joke in itself. The internet has emboldened anonymous individuals to use social pressure to crush others and get what they want. The biggest mistake of our time was giving these voices a platform. Many of these people seem unhinged, often targeting individuals to the point of costing them their jobs. We’ve all witnessed it over the years. Talking about cancel culture is important because anything disagreeable online quickly turns into a hive-mind, tribalistic mindset where harassment replaces discourse. For those doused in cancel culture, it’s never about discussion—it’s about blind assimilation and loyalty to their beliefs.

Cancel culture exploits the goodwill of the people and gives them this false sense of justice, when in reality their goodwill is being used to harm others or achieve an agenda. The simplest way to put this in practice is to think differently than those who practice this hivemind activity—as once you do that, you’ll know in full force that you need to fall back in line.

It is important to acknowledge this behavior as not good, and incredibly manipulative. We’ve seen it on games developed with AI as a tool to accelerate assets/resources in game development. There are true grievances of people losing their jobs to artificial intelligence, and cancel culture shouldn’t have any say or bend anyone to its will. The noise generated by cancel culture often backfires—causing everyday people to tune out rather than engage.

It is imperative that the will of the people be heard for more regulations and protections for workers. Discourse needs to happen to protect the present and future from companies trying to replace human workers. I don’t think artificial intelligence should be outright rejected by societies. I also think that people will ignore the signs and be complacent as artificial intelligence is solving their issues, and I have no doubt in my mind that it is a pros vs cons of having artificial intelligence around for many people.