Everyone is talking about it. You can't open a laptop or sit through a board meeting without someone asking, "So, what do you think about that?" usually followed by a vague gesture toward a ChatGPT window or a Midjourney render. It’s the elephant in every room.
Honestly? Most people are faking it.
They’re nodding along because they don’t want to look behind the curve. But if you talk to the engineers at OpenAI, the researchers at Anthropic, or the frustrated CTOs trying to actually deploy this stuff, the vibe is shifting. We’ve moved past the "magic trick" phase. Now we’re in the "how do we actually pay for this?" phase.
The reality is messier than the LinkedIn influencers want you to believe. It’s not just about a chatbot writing a decent email anymore; it’s about the massive, crumbling infrastructure of the internet and the sudden realization that high-quality data is a finite resource.
The Data Wall: Why We’re Running Out of Human Thoughts
We’ve hit a weird snag.
✨ Don't miss: Why the Real Life Flying Iron Man Suit Is Harder to Build Than You Think
For the last few years, the strategy was basically "bigger is better." More parameters. More GPUs. More scraped data from Reddit and Wikipedia. But researchers from groups like Epoch AI have been sounding the alarm: we are literally running out of high-quality human text to feed these machines.
What happens then?
You start feeding the AI its own output. It’s called "model collapse." It’s like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. Eventually, the image gets grainy and weird. If the internet becomes 90% AI-generated SEO fodder, the next generation of models will be trained on garbage.
You’ve probably noticed it already. Have you searched for a recipe or a product review lately? The results are often "hollow." They use the right words but feel like they were written by someone who has never actually tasted a lemon or held a screwdriver. That’s the byproduct of the current cycle.
- Models scrape the web.
- Models generate content.
- Content is posted to the web.
- Future models scrape that content.
It’s a digital Ouroboros. It eats its own tail.
The Energy Crisis Hidden in Your Prompt
Think about the last time you asked an AI to generate a picture of a cat in a tuxedo. It took five seconds. It felt free. It wasn't.
Every single prompt carries a heavy physical cost. According to researchers at the University of California, Riverside, a conversation with ChatGPT (roughly 20 to 50 questions) "drinks" about 500ml of water for cooling the servers. When you multiply that by millions of users, you’re talking about a massive environmental footprint that companies like Microsoft and Google are struggling to keep quiet.
Their carbon neutral goals are slipping.
We see the shiny interface, but we don't see the massive data centers in Iowa or Taiwan humming at 100 degrees, sucking up electricity like a small nation-state. This is the part of the "what do you think about that" conversation that usually gets ignored because it’s not fun. It’s much more fun to talk about whether AI will replace Hollywood screenwriters than it is to talk about the power grid in Northern Virginia.
Reality Check: The Productivity Paradox
Is anyone actually getting more work done?
Well, sort of.
If you're a coder, GitHub Copilot is a godsend. It handles the boilerplate. It’s like having a very fast junior dev who never sleeps. But for everyone else? We’re mostly just creating more noise. We’re using AI to write long emails that the recipient will then use AI to summarize.
We’ve automated the middle, but we’ve added a layer of bureaucracy to our digital lives.
I spoke with a marketing director last week who said her team is producing 4x the content they did in 2023. I asked her if their sales went up. She got quiet. "No," she admitted. "But our competitors are posting more, so we have to too."
That is the definition of a "Red Queen" race. You have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.
📖 Related: Hyundai Electric Car Concept: What Most People Get Wrong About the Future of the Ioniq Series
Why Logic is Still a Problem
Large Language Models (LLMs) are essentially world-class calculators for words. They predict the next token. They don’t "know" things in the way you know that a glass will break if you drop it.
- Hallucinations: They aren't bugs; they are a fundamental feature of how the tech works.
- Reasoning: If you give an LLM a logic puzzle that isn't in its training data, it often falls apart.
- Context: They have "short-term memory" (context windows) that is getting bigger, but they still struggle with long-term consistency.
Gary Marcus, a well-known AI skeptic and scientist, has been banging this drum for years. He argues that we won't get to "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI) just by scaling up current tech. We need a fundamental breakthrough in how machines understand symbolic logic.
Basically, we built a very fancy parrot. Now we're trying to teach the parrot to do calculus.
The Copyright Storm is Coming
This is the legal "what do you think about that" moment that will define the next decade.
The New York Times is suing OpenAI. Artists are suing Midjourney. The core of the argument is simple: Is it "fair use" to train a commercial product on someone else’s copyrighted work without paying them?
Silicon Valley says yes. They call it "transformative."
The creators say no. They call it "theft at scale."
If the courts side with the creators, the business model of AI changes overnight. Training a model would become prohibitively expensive. We might see a shift toward "Small Language Models" (SLMs) trained on narrow, licensed datasets. This would be more accurate but less "magical." It’s the difference between a library and a chaotic pile of every book ever written.
How to Actually Use This Stuff Without Losing Your Mind
If you’re feeling overwhelmed, you’re doing it right. It’s a lot. But there are ways to approach this tech that aren’t just "blindly following the hype."
📖 Related: Who first invented the airplane? What history books usually skip
First, stop treating it like a search engine. Google (for all its flaws) still tries to point you to a source. AI just gives you an answer. Always verify the "load-bearing" facts in any AI output. If the specific date or name matters, don't trust the bot.
Second, use it for "divergent" thinking, not "convergent" work. Use it to brainstorm 20 bad ideas so you can find one good one. Don't use it to make the final decision.
Third, look at the edges. The most interesting AI applications aren't chatbots. They are in protein folding (AlphaFold), weather prediction, and materials science. That’s where the real "magic" is happening, far away from the "write a poem in the style of a pirate" nonsense.
Actionable Steps for the "What Do You Think About That" Era
Don't wait for a company-wide policy that might never come.
- Audit your workflow. Pick one task you hate—like formatting spreadsheets or summarizing meeting transcripts—and see if a tool like Claude or Gemini can handle it. If it saves you an hour a week, it’s a win.
- Learn "Prompt Engineering" (but not the fake kind). It’s not about magic words. It’s about being specific. Give the AI a persona, a goal, and constraints. "Write a report" is bad. "You are a cynical financial analyst. Review this data and find three reasons why this investment might fail. Use a professional but blunt tone" is good.
- Protect your data. Never put sensitive company info or personal secrets into a public AI. Unless you’re using an enterprise version with a privacy guarantee, assume everything you type is being used to train the next version.
- Stay human. In a world of infinite, cheap, AI-generated content, the "human" touch becomes a premium. Typos, weird opinions, and personal stories are your new superpower. They are the proof that a person is actually behind the screen.
The "bubble" might pop, or it might just slowly leak air until it reaches a sustainable size. Either way, the tech isn't going away. It's just becoming a utility, like electricity or the internet. It stopped being a miracle and started being a tool. And tools are only as good as the person holding them.
Stop worrying about the "AI revolution" and start focusing on the specific problems you need to solve today. The rest is just noise.