The European Anti-AI Bashing

GPT-5 is on track, and anxieties are rising about the place of humans in a few years in the face of systems capable of perfectly performing a number of tasks that provide a source of income for humans. All those who, like me, experienced the early days of computing and had to think about the phenomenon knew very well that it would eliminate thousands of jobs, and it also created new ones. We also knew that with the arrival of quantum computing, things would accelerate, and humans would lose more jobs to machines, which would become increasingly autonomous. If we don’t think further, it’s easy to focus only on the tragedy, which suits the Europeans who are far behind American research, hence the organized bashing campaigns in all the media regarding AI.

Certainly, jobs will be lost, but many others will be simplified thanks to AI, and it is always the subordinate jobs that will bear the brunt. Those who master technologies, like cinema engines, theater lighting technicians, and sound engineers, will soon see their tools evolve to save them a maximum of time. Humans will remain the decision-makers, as we cannot and will not be able to imitate the artistic decision-making part of humans. Machines, by definition, can only retranscribe the emotions we give them, which, in fact, will not be exploitable on a professional level.

There’s no need to worry about music. The vast majority of artists from major labels would be nothing without technology, most of them having only the title of artist and certainly not the skills. For others, AI will simplify their tools. A guitar will be able to tune itself or de-tune on demand according to the desired chords, and DAWs will become ultra-simple tools, allowing sound engineers and musicians to focus their skills on the details.

If major label artists are replaced by machines, it wouldn’t change much. Indeed, major labels have formatted listeners’ ears to listen to very poor-quality music over the past fifteen years. Machines won’t do worse.

In the cinema industry, which is largely an industry, we might see extras disappear in favor of machines for the most expensive productions aimed at a wide audience. We already do this for some sets and even see some deceased actors interacting with living ones. Yes, these things seem inevitable. This is one of the reasons why some economists have been considering a “universal income” for decades, knowing that there will be less and less work for everyone and increasingly specialized work. Nowadays, a good part of Western populations has a different idea of work than previous generations, prioritizing their well-being over the company that pays them. It’s not something to criticize; it’s just a social evolution. We just need to consider this phenomenon and figure out what to do with it, knowing that AI, in any case, pushes us toward this mindset.

Musicians worried about copyright are fighting the wrong battle. AI-generated music is inherently royalty-free because it belongs to no one; only reproduction rights would apply. For others, it won’t change much except for the aforementioned aspects that will simplify their lives. We can be sure that limits will be set in the long or short term on what new systems can do. For this, leaders need to rejuvenate to understand the real issues, not those assumed by boomers who are completely out of touch with technology.

The negative reactions to AI are the same as those we had at the advent of railways, which were once called the invention of the devil. Today, the whole world is on board with trains. People who criticize AI are relatively ignorant on all these subjects and merely repeat what some decision-makers say for their reasons. We must embrace the future with goodwill and also learn to frame it with intelligence and a real vision of the future. Depending on how we position ourselves on the subject, it will become positive or negative. The world won’t stop turning, and neither will research. It’s in human DNA, and humans must now learn to live with the future.