By YanK l'Innommé

Artificial intelligence now occupies an increasingly significant place in our society. From the creation of images and texts to the automation of complex tasks, it is shaping our daily lives in ever more visible ways. Yet, this rise elicits mixed reactions. Some see it as a revolutionary advancement, others as a threat, while many prefer to ignore it or believe it will eventually fade away like a passing trend. But can we really afford to look the other way? By refusing to confront these changes, do we not risk allowing this technology to be shaped solely by private interests, to the detriment of the collective good?

First, I want to dispel a common misconception. The idea of a technological bubble ready to burst is often put forward to downplay the impact of artificial intelligence, comparing it to the collapse of cryptocurrencies or NFTs. This comparison doesn't hold. AI is neither a speculative fad nor a mere market phenomenon. It is built on decades of research and is becoming permanently integrated into all sectors, from industry to medicine to culture. Its evolution is supported by solid infrastructures, colossal funding, and potential that far exceeds the applications we know today. It will not disappear, and to pretend otherwise is to refuse to accept a transformation already underway.

And in the face of this reality, public and political debate often seems inadequate, if not nonexistent. When addressed, it is primarily from the perspective of economic competitiveness and technological sovereignty. Who will dominate the AI market? How to catch up with the United States and China? Where to find the funding to stay in the race? So many questions that reflect a biased view of the subject, focused on financial and strategic issues. Yet, artificial intelligence is not just an economic challenge. It is a major societal upheaval that raises ethical, political, and philosophical questions. Who decides the directions of these technologies? What impacts on employment and inequalities? What place for transparency and regulation? These questions, though essential, remain largely sidelined. And this political silence is anything but trivial: it reflects an implicit willingness to leave AI in the hands of the private sector, where only a few giants will shape the future of technology according to their interests.

Because if we let AI evolve without a framework, it will become yet another tool serving an increasingly concentrated capitalism. Already today, its development is monopolized by a handful of companies that have the resources and computing power necessary to train the most efficient models. This imbalance reinforces their dominance in the market as well as their influence on future uses and regulations. Artificial intelligence thus risks exacerbating inequalities, by automating entire sectors without providing support for affected workers, by massively exploiting data without compensation for those who provide it, and by imposing tools designed primarily to maximize profit. And as always, the same ones will benefit from this technological revolution: the ultra-rich, multinationals, those who already have power. The others will just have to endure.

But I want to believe that another path is possible. Rather than outright rejecting this evolution or resigning ourselves to its hijacking by capitalist logics, it is imperative to build ethical and viable alternatives. I dream of an ethical Midjourney, a cooperative platform where artists would be fairly compensated based on the weight of their contribution to the generated works. A tool that wouldn't plunder creators but would fully integrate them into the process, allowing them to benefit from technological advances instead of being victims. A transparent system, where each user would know exactly what the AI is based on. Where decisions would be made collectively, not by a handful of shareholders solely concerned with profitability. This model, far from being a utopia, could exist if the political will and public support were there. But for now, these projects remain dreams, lacking a framework that encourages their emergence and protects them from the unfair competition of industry giants.

In conclusion, the real issue is not whether artificial intelligence will disappear, but rather deciding the direction it will take. Refusing to think about it is to leave the field open to those who will make it a mere economic lever serving a minority. There is still time to act, to influence decisions, to demand appropriate regulations, and to promote fairer models. But if we remain spectators, we can only helplessly witness the consequences of a technology that could have been a progress for all but risks becoming a new factor of inequalities and domination.

So I know that my remarks will not be unanimous, far from it. I would like to hold an enlightened discourse, but it surely has weaknesses and biases because I am human. I hope, however, to foster a debate, ideally healthy and respectful of all. And to make everyone understand that AI is not a temporary phenomenon and that closing our eyes will not make it disappear. It is now that we must fight for it to serve humanity and not an elite greedy for profits.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).