19.1 Who Rejects the Age of Abundance?

We live in an era of contrasts. Almost every week, a new model is released, another mathematical problem is solved, or human trials for curing aging are initiated. In the past, new models were tested by making them generate weird images; today, their capabilities are tested by having them build fully functional, playable FPS games from scratch. The sheer power of machine intelligence has grown so vastly that if you have ideas, bringing them to life is easier than ever. Yet, there are people who completely reject anything created by AI and refuse to have anything to do with it. This paradox is so fascinating and incomprehensible to me that I decided to write about it.

The first group fears that relying too heavily on artificial intelligence will make us dumber, as we will no longer need to use our own brains. This argument certainly holds some truth, and variations of it have been echoed for millennia. Even Socrates argued that the invention of writing was detrimental because it would cause people to stop exercising their memory. When the radio arrived, the fear was that people would stop reading books. When television was introduced, the narrative was exactly the same: read books, don’t watch TV, it rots your brain. Then came video games, social media, and now artificial intelligence. At the crest of every new technological wave, there are always voices warning that this new thing is the most dangerous yet.

To some extent, this criticism is undoubtedly justified. Those who previously did things half-assed - text with typos, poor punctuation, and no clear thought - are now generating AI texts without even proofreading them, publishing nonsense slop. Broadly speaking, it comes down to this: those who are consumers will indeed become less intelligent. Whether you consume books, watch television, or endlessly scroll on your phone - if you are passive and only consume, your intellect will inevitably stagnate. However, if you are active, executing on your ideas, improving a process, or exploring new horizons, you will learn along the way regardless of whether learning was your primary goal. Makers become sharper; passive consumers fall behind.

The second group consists of individuals who live relatively peaceful and comfortable lives, and who fear the chaos that such rapid changes bring. And admittedly, the chaos is palpable. Constant news, discoveries, and breakthroughs—someone is always talking about the endless possibilities of AI. They can’t keep up with the pace and simply don’t want any part in the surrounding frenzy. And when you can’t keep up or research things yourself, long-debunked claims begin creeping into your arguments - AI data centers drain all local water supplies, emit hums that make people sick, and drive electricity prices through the roof. These people just want to live quietly; they have little interest in frontier scientific achievements.

The next group believes that if something is not of biological origin, it inherently lacks value. Be it AI-generated art, literature, music, games, websites, or documents—not because machines are incapable of producing good art or because the output is garbage, but because they believe true creation can only come from a biological being endowed with a body, suffering, and lived experiences. Everything else is deemed inferior. Now that we have attained cognitive augmentation, there are those who condemn it entirely. In their eyes, generative tools should not be used because their output is deemed hollow; only that which is born of human experience possesses true worth.

Then there are the more radical voices: those who hold humanity’s current biological state as sacred and untouchable. It must not be altered, repaired, or enhanced in any way. To them, aging is not a disease to be cured, but an inevitability that must not be tampered with. Humans shouldn’t colonize other planets or strive at all costs to improve themselves and the world. Instead, we should simply exist peacefully, temper our expectations for growth, and quietly fade into the background. Matter must not be manipulated - the only permissible action is conservation, even at the expense of human progress.

They consider this the only morally correct viewpoint. They would shut down all AI development, delete the models, turn back the clock, and freeze time. Exactly where they would stop the clock is unclear, but the underlying sentiment is this: let’s keep the technology we have now, and no more. On one hand, their argument relies on existential risk, but fundamentally, they believe that without biology and a physical body, there can be no mind, no experience, nothing. They outright reject the possibility of a true Machine Intelligence - a genuinely conscious digital entity - and view all attempts in that direction as inherently evil. This mindset borders on religious fundamentalism, particularly in its calls to erase all existing models and halt development indefinitely.

Part of this opposition stems from the argument that since AI has been trained on the collective knowledge of humanity without compensation or permission, everything related to AI is built on theft and is therefore immoral. This claim persists despite the fact that through AI, all this knowledge is being returned directly to the people—ranging from state-of-the-art paid models to free, open-source alternatives that anyone can run on their home hardware. This group doesn’t simply refuse to use AI themselves; they want to ban it entirely for everyone else.

Opting out is everyone’s right—let them be. They can quietly exist wherever they please. However, shutting down AI is no longer possible, and the people who create, discover, and drive humanity forward refuse to have their intelligence artificially diminished. Enforcing a ban on a technology that is already so widespread would require the establishment of a massive surveillance state.

The Age of Abundance does not mean we are all forced to adopt every new piece of technology. Above all, it means freedom of choice. Those who find true value and authenticity solely in pure human effort and biological limitations can continue their creative work exactly as before and no one is taking that right away from them. But equally vital is the right of those who wish to augment their capabilities with machine intelligence, eradicate diseases, and expand the boundaries of human knowledge. We cannot halt progress or destroy the models we’ve already built, because enforcing such bans would birth a digital inquisition and spell the end of a free society. A true Age of Abundance is expansive enough to accommodate both: the technologically augmented creators, and those who consciously choose a more traditional, slower path. But this choice must not be made on behalf of others.