Im not sure the argument that boomer luddites being seen as stubborn for rejecting AI while Gen Z are seen as intellects is strong enough to support such a harmful claim like “anti AI is ageist.” Being a Luddite has always been associated with being artistic, anti industry, pro nature, poetry, the “real” human experience. The people on the other side are the “pioneers” the industry folks, the entrepreneurs. Which is why the most important distinction between the acceptors and the rejecters of new tech isn’t age it’s: who stands to benefit from it vs who doesn’t (or who morally aligns with who doesn’t). That’s as true now as it was 100 years ago when people were complaining about electricity. And 50 years ago when they were worried about TV. That’s why, yes, there have been boomers making awkward speeches at graduations, but there are also plenty of boomers speaking against AI, just as there are plenty of young people who have given the “it’s here, we got live with it speech”.
If anything what’s ageist is generalizing older people and assuming they’re either unwilling or incapable of being critical about new technology for fear of being disliked by Gen Z. I truly don’t think I’ve ever met a boomer who would care what we think of them.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment - I think what I failed to clarify is that the (unjustified) assumptions about age and AI prevents us from seeing the actual distinction that you’re describing (who stands to benefit vs. who doesn’t)! That’s the so-called ‘privilege’ I was trying to get at.
Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate when my brain shorted out seeing this heading. Time to close substack for the day, I guess. Also, plenty of boomers hate the harm being caused by data centers.
Another smart, smart, smart Tiffany Ng essay! First, I loved the opening TW/disclaimer/apologia. I also very much liked the incisive deconstruction of double standards across the generations. Your witty use of images, some of them shocking, added to the fun.
As a former editor, I'll add this: two of the three uses of "it's" are correct here. The first, "It's only cool now" near the top of section 2, is right because it means "it is." Ditto the third use, "if there's anything boomers have learned, it's not to disparage..." because you can say, "... it is not to disparage..."
An easy way to remember that instances like this are suitable for using an apostrophe with "it's": imagine, if you will, that the little apostrophe had been leading a terribly dull life as the letter "i", trudging along dutifully in sentences like "It is hot in here" and "It is so boring to listen to this former editor drone on about apostrophes." One day the little i had had enough. Enough! So it leapt up, got all curvy and rebellious, and became an apostrophe. Then it had fun up on the superscript line, looking down a bit superciliously on its former fellow trudgers: "It's cooling off in here," and "It's great to express myself more clearly." So: It is = it's.
But wait: How can you tell when not to add the little apostrophe in among I-T-S?
A good bad-example is in the second use here, in the section "They Don't Want Us to Make the Mistake They Made":
'That means, for a model to reach it's “full potential,” one must train a model ...' This is just not right.
This apostrophe is bogus and shouldn't be there. It has not lived the woeful drudgery of the little letter "i" in "is." It did not leap up to become a succinct, curvy shorthand for a verb on a higher plane. You cannot say: "... for a model to reach it is full potential..."
And that's your test: if you can put an "is" in where the apostrophe was ("and that is your test"), then it's fine (it is fine). Other letters in verbs may also experience ennui and leap out of it: you're fine if you find them (you are fine).
Now, another kind of apostrophe CAN also become possessive: Jon's book, Sara's bulldozer. But that's (that IS) for another day. Those apostrophes lived a different kind of life and are there for different reasons. They substitute for "of," and their transformation is a magical tale of another kind: the book of Jon, the bulldozer of Sara, well, this involves crushing, and leaping forward and backward at once, and it can get violent.
But back to simple its/it's: unless the apostrophe used to live its little life in Verb Land, as the second "i" in "it is," it's an impostor, a fake, and wrong. It is! In such a case what you want is a possessive adjective, a word without an apostrophe describing, in the case above, "full potential" (whose potential? Its potential), and describing "life" in my own sentence here (whose life? Its very own little life; you can't say "it used to live it is own little life," so the apostrophe must go. it has not paid its dues [whose dues? its very own.]).
One scary thing is that some online grammar checkers actually get this very basic rule about "its vs. it's" wrong. So use your own brain, everybody, which is better than any online anything. Oops, almost gave away my pan-generational anti-AI position there.
I hope you and your readers had fun with this. I did! I love your iconoclastic bent; thank you for writing these intelligent essays.
One of my takes that I think is pretty fair on older ppl loving ai is that they were all raised at a time when there was less research and wayyy less public knowledge about environmental impact of endless capitalism/production. They lived in the big postwar boom of globalized capitalism and because the resources had never been utilized to that amount it was never a concern. They were generationally conditioned to think that expansion/production/advancement can truly be infinite- and that includes tech and convenience, and so ai just seems like the best tool we have yet and therefore we should take it and run with it cause look how much faster it can do what what we’ve already been doing! And I just think that they don’t really have the doubt or thought of the consequences like our generation does.
this has me rethinking the idea of anti-ai, because i often considered myself as one. i often thought that ai was just the easy way out for things we could've done on our own years ago, with hard work and determination. but i'm realising now the effects of this hard work and determination on generations that are not gen-z, that they are actually quite tired. and that they could actually want to fit into the new world where things are much more easier and quicker. meanwhile, the younger generation judges these older people and goes anti-ai. this kind of just makes me go, what really is the intention and true nature of being anti ai? perhaps we can all come to the consensus that ai is just a tool used in the wrong ways.
fair enough, i understand the perspective and i’m not saying i disagree! i’m trying to see it in a balanced way, and i still find myself leaning towards your perspective as well.
its hard to find balance in every aspect of life, but i think we all needa practice finding equilibrium and finding the sweet spot in things. its a rough process, but we'll get there :)
Im not sure the argument that boomer luddites being seen as stubborn for rejecting AI while Gen Z are seen as intellects is strong enough to support such a harmful claim like “anti AI is ageist.” Being a Luddite has always been associated with being artistic, anti industry, pro nature, poetry, the “real” human experience. The people on the other side are the “pioneers” the industry folks, the entrepreneurs. Which is why the most important distinction between the acceptors and the rejecters of new tech isn’t age it’s: who stands to benefit from it vs who doesn’t (or who morally aligns with who doesn’t). That’s as true now as it was 100 years ago when people were complaining about electricity. And 50 years ago when they were worried about TV. That’s why, yes, there have been boomers making awkward speeches at graduations, but there are also plenty of boomers speaking against AI, just as there are plenty of young people who have given the “it’s here, we got live with it speech”.
If anything what’s ageist is generalizing older people and assuming they’re either unwilling or incapable of being critical about new technology for fear of being disliked by Gen Z. I truly don’t think I’ve ever met a boomer who would care what we think of them.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment - I think what I failed to clarify is that the (unjustified) assumptions about age and AI prevents us from seeing the actual distinction that you’re describing (who stands to benefit vs. who doesn’t)! That’s the so-called ‘privilege’ I was trying to get at.
You started a really interesting conversation regardless! Thanks for writing this :)
Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to articulate when my brain shorted out seeing this heading. Time to close substack for the day, I guess. Also, plenty of boomers hate the harm being caused by data centers.
bruh this was such a clickbait title😭
Another smart, smart, smart Tiffany Ng essay! First, I loved the opening TW/disclaimer/apologia. I also very much liked the incisive deconstruction of double standards across the generations. Your witty use of images, some of them shocking, added to the fun.
As a former editor, I'll add this: two of the three uses of "it's" are correct here. The first, "It's only cool now" near the top of section 2, is right because it means "it is." Ditto the third use, "if there's anything boomers have learned, it's not to disparage..." because you can say, "... it is not to disparage..."
An easy way to remember that instances like this are suitable for using an apostrophe with "it's": imagine, if you will, that the little apostrophe had been leading a terribly dull life as the letter "i", trudging along dutifully in sentences like "It is hot in here" and "It is so boring to listen to this former editor drone on about apostrophes." One day the little i had had enough. Enough! So it leapt up, got all curvy and rebellious, and became an apostrophe. Then it had fun up on the superscript line, looking down a bit superciliously on its former fellow trudgers: "It's cooling off in here," and "It's great to express myself more clearly." So: It is = it's.
But wait: How can you tell when not to add the little apostrophe in among I-T-S?
A good bad-example is in the second use here, in the section "They Don't Want Us to Make the Mistake They Made":
'That means, for a model to reach it's “full potential,” one must train a model ...' This is just not right.
This apostrophe is bogus and shouldn't be there. It has not lived the woeful drudgery of the little letter "i" in "is." It did not leap up to become a succinct, curvy shorthand for a verb on a higher plane. You cannot say: "... for a model to reach it is full potential..."
And that's your test: if you can put an "is" in where the apostrophe was ("and that is your test"), then it's fine (it is fine). Other letters in verbs may also experience ennui and leap out of it: you're fine if you find them (you are fine).
Now, another kind of apostrophe CAN also become possessive: Jon's book, Sara's bulldozer. But that's (that IS) for another day. Those apostrophes lived a different kind of life and are there for different reasons. They substitute for "of," and their transformation is a magical tale of another kind: the book of Jon, the bulldozer of Sara, well, this involves crushing, and leaping forward and backward at once, and it can get violent.
But back to simple its/it's: unless the apostrophe used to live its little life in Verb Land, as the second "i" in "it is," it's an impostor, a fake, and wrong. It is! In such a case what you want is a possessive adjective, a word without an apostrophe describing, in the case above, "full potential" (whose potential? Its potential), and describing "life" in my own sentence here (whose life? Its very own little life; you can't say "it used to live it is own little life," so the apostrophe must go. it has not paid its dues [whose dues? its very own.]).
One scary thing is that some online grammar checkers actually get this very basic rule about "its vs. it's" wrong. So use your own brain, everybody, which is better than any online anything. Oops, almost gave away my pan-generational anti-AI position there.
I hope you and your readers had fun with this. I did! I love your iconoclastic bent; thank you for writing these intelligent essays.
I really appreciate this reply
Thanks; I hope it was fun and useful.
it was! thank you as always!
One of my takes that I think is pretty fair on older ppl loving ai is that they were all raised at a time when there was less research and wayyy less public knowledge about environmental impact of endless capitalism/production. They lived in the big postwar boom of globalized capitalism and because the resources had never been utilized to that amount it was never a concern. They were generationally conditioned to think that expansion/production/advancement can truly be infinite- and that includes tech and convenience, and so ai just seems like the best tool we have yet and therefore we should take it and run with it cause look how much faster it can do what what we’ve already been doing! And I just think that they don’t really have the doubt or thought of the consequences like our generation does.
this has me rethinking the idea of anti-ai, because i often considered myself as one. i often thought that ai was just the easy way out for things we could've done on our own years ago, with hard work and determination. but i'm realising now the effects of this hard work and determination on generations that are not gen-z, that they are actually quite tired. and that they could actually want to fit into the new world where things are much more easier and quicker. meanwhile, the younger generation judges these older people and goes anti-ai. this kind of just makes me go, what really is the intention and true nature of being anti ai? perhaps we can all come to the consensus that ai is just a tool used in the wrong ways.
there isnt really a right way to use ai when regardless of the reason the outcome is still detrimental to life/earth and resources imo
fair enough, thats how i saw it but i figured if it exists, might as well adapt you know? i mean my opinion around ai isnt fully developed yet
i understand thinking like that but also we dont have to adapt especially when the future of the planet as we know it is at stake
fair enough, i understand the perspective and i’m not saying i disagree! i’m trying to see it in a balanced way, and i still find myself leaning towards your perspective as well.
i get it!! i dont think you are :) i just wish i could see somewhat balanced lol i just have think too much abt collateral already 🥲
its hard to find balance in every aspect of life, but i think we all needa practice finding equilibrium and finding the sweet spot in things. its a rough process, but we'll get there :)