{"id":1473,"date":"2025-09-15T19:58:59","date_gmt":"2025-09-15T19:58:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitcommlab.mit.edu\/aeroastro\/?p=1473"},"modified":"2026-07-31T15:40:02","modified_gmt":"2026-07-31T15:40:02","slug":"the-cost-of-generative-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitcommlab.mit.edu\/aeroastro\/2025\/09\/15\/the-cost-of-generative-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"The Cost of Generative AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

It has been about two years since ChatGPT took the world by storm, offering a quick and easy way to ask questions in plain text, generate new information, and get clarification on more things than ever before.<\/span><\/p>\n

And I hate it.<\/span><\/p>\n

It should come as little surprise to the people who know me well. As a someone who dabbles quite a bit in creative writing and has many friends who are artists, the potential damages this tool can have to already razor-thin careers and to the replacement of human expression with corporation approved, repetitive, uncreative works \u2013 or, \u201cslop\u201d as has become the popular term \u2013 is not only palpable, but already has been seen [1, 2, 3]. That this tool can only exist because of using works without permission, terabytes and terabytes of them, is quite well known [4]. For these reasons, plenty of people, not just artists, are against the usage of generative AI for creative works [5].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But for technical and professional work, it is a different story.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This blog post isn\u2019t a panic piece about how \u201cnobody can write papers anymore\u201d or about how \u201cresearchers are publishing hallucinations.\u201d In fact, surveys show that the majority of generative AI for technical writing is being used in the editing process. Nature in May 2025, for instance, found that, of 5000 researchers, the most appropriate use of generative AI was deemed to be editing papers, with 90% of respondents saying it was appropriate in some way [6]. Closer to home, a survey of 678 members of the MIT community performed in May-July 2024\u00a0 [7] showed similar: the majority of students did not use generative AI for generating new text, but for editing sentences and improving paragraphs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Outside of papers, plenty of other technical writing tasks have been transformed by generative AI. Emails are generated now (19% of a survey of 5,000 US adults) [8]. LinkedIn posts are generated now (54% of 8,795 English language posts) [9]. Resumes are created, edited, and improved (45% of a survey of 5,000 job seekers from the US, UK, India, Germany, Spain, France, Mexico, and Brazil) [10].<\/span><\/p>\n

In aggregate, the current consensus seems to be that generative AI is most acceptable for its use in helping with the little, frustrating, grating parts of technical writing. These are tasks that, perhaps someday, people will no longer do.<\/span><\/p>\n

And this is what worries me. Not just as a gut reaction, a protectiveness towards a skill I\u2019ve spent years honing, but as an analysis of how I believe long-term use of generative AI could affect the writing capabilities of a person. I wanted to take this space to reflect a bit on why I, personally, do not support the use of generative AI for technical writing, and what you should be considering as you make the decision on if or when you\u2019re going to use it. In this blog post, I\u2019ll first briefly go over some of the common moral problems with generative AI. I\u2019ll then discuss the skills that may atrophy because of using generative AI for editing. Next, I\u2019ll talk about why generative AI tools have a big \u201cyes-man\u201d bend to them. Then, I\u2019ll talk about how dependence on, not just a tool, but a company, may have long-term dangers. Finally, I\u2019ll talk about why, despite all this, why I believe generative AI is still popular and how we can be mindful in the face of it.<\/span><\/p>\n

This blog post is entirely my opinion: not the opinion of the MIT Communication Lab, nor the opinion of the other AeroAstro Communication Fellows.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

1. The Common Arguments<\/span><\/h2>\n

First, I\u2019m not here to tell you you\u2019re an irredeemably evil person for using generative AI. I\u2019m also not here to tell you you\u2019re morally in the clear for using it. I am not a priest at confession; I cannot arbitrate or absolve your sins. Our society is built on invisible cruelties, some of which we have little choice but to accept to continue to function in it: you may know your smartphone is made in factories with horrible conditions, but it is becoming near impossible to function without one. Now, I do think that there is a <\/span>huge <\/span><\/i>difference between using a smart phone and using a tool that has only existed for a few years. I do not think that the use of generative AI is a foregone conclusion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This blog is not focused on the ethical issues with generative AI, as the potential problems are so deep and multifaceted that I only had time to focus on one of them.\u00a0 I feel it would be disingenuous of me not to help inform you of some I couldn\u2019t cover. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues, in no particular order, and some sources that go into them in detail:<\/span><\/p>\n