I am starting a weekly blog series where I take on subjects we have very big opinions about and apply the So What? philosophy to them. This is not about telling you what my opinion is and convincing you to agree with me. It is about clearing away some of the noise, looking at the issue through more than one lens and asking what we are actually going to do with what we know.
I am starting with artificial intelligence, small business and the way we talk to each other about AI.
I have seen a lot of vitriol directed at people who use AI, especially small business owners who use it to create posters, social media graphics or marketing materials. Some of it is not simply disagreement. It is public shaming, piling on and making assumptions about someone’s values based on one graphic.
I understand the concerns about AI-generated art. Artists deserve to be paid. Their work should not be taken, copied or repackaged without their permission. If someone has the budget to hire a local artist or graphic designer, that is a wonderful investment. There are also lower-cost options, including Canva, for people who cannot afford to have everything designed from scratch.
But imagine a small business owner who is barely hanging on. They are organizing an event that might bring in some desperately needed income. They need a poster, but they have no marketing budget and certainly no money for a professional designer. They use an AI tool and make the poster themselves.
We see the poster and react as if that is the end of the story.
We do not know whether that person is choosing between graphic design and groceries. We do not know if they are trying to keep an employee working, pay their rent or simply get enough people through the door to make the event worthwhile. We see the use of AI and fill in everything else through our own lens.
Before we attack them, could we ask why? Instead of calling them out, let’s try calling them in.
When I owned a courier company, I watched businesses move to app-based delivery companies and high-tech startups because they were cheaper. I understood why they did it. They had their own bills, employees and customers, and they needed to remain competitive.
But let us not pretend those choices did not hurt people.
Those new models often relied on drivers receiving lower pay while covering their own gas, insurance, vehicle repairs and other expenses. Local courier businesses could not always compete with those prices. Technology made delivery easier and cheaper for one small business while making survival much harder for another.
Technology has been replacing, reducing and changing human jobs for a very long time. AI did not begin that conversation. It has simply made the conversation louder and added a lot of anger.
The internet changed how we shop. Online banking changed how many people work in banks. Self-checkouts changed retail jobs. Apps changed the taxi and courier industries. Streaming changed music, television and film. Canva itself made it possible for people to create materials they once would have hired someone else to make.
Every technological shift creates opportunity for some people and loss for others. That does not automatically make it good or bad. It means we have to look more closely.
This is where the So What? philosophy comes in.
Our first reaction is not objective. It is shaped by our experiences, our work, our fears, our values and what we stand to gain or lose. An artist may see AI-generated art and think about stolen work and lost income. A small business owner may see an affordable way to promote an event. An environmental advocate may see energy consumption. A person with a disability may see a tool that suddenly makes certain work more accessible. A customer may simply see a poster.
None of those people is looking at the issue from exactly the same place.
The So What? philosophy asks us to pause before we decide that our perspective is the whole truth. It does not ask us to abandon our values or pretend there is no harm. It asks us to become curious enough to understand what is actually happening.
Instead of immediately attacking someone, perhaps we could ask:
- Why did you choose to use AI?
- What could you realistically afford?
- Were there other options available to you?
- What were you trying to accomplish?
- Whose work or livelihood might be affected by that choice?
- What support would make it possible for you to hire an artist next time?
- What concerns are artists raising that the rest of us need to hear?
- Is there a solution that supports artists without ignoring the financial reality of small businesses?
Those questions will not make everyone agree. That is not the goal. The goal is to understand the issue well enough to make better choices and have better conversations and put people before positions, a key tenant in this philosophy.
I have asked people to show me credible research about the environmental impact of artificial intelligence compared with the broader internet. I am not saying those concerns are wrong. They may be completely accurate and deeply troubling. I am saying I want to understand the facts before repeating claims because everyone around me has already decided what I am supposed to believe. I ask for sources, because when I enter an debate, I like to hear from all sides and get as many facts as I can.
Asking for evidence is not denial. Asking questions is not support for harm. Sometimes it simply means we are still learning, yet asking this one question has had people say I am taking away from their statements. It is not, if the science exists, it will strengthen in!
I remember hearing many warnings about the internet in 1995. Some were right. Some were wrong. Some underestimated how much the internet would change our lives, our relationships, our work and our environment. We did not stop the internet. We adapted to it, regulated parts of it, misused it, benefited from it and are still trying to understand what it has done to us.
AI may be another enormous shift. If it is, then we need a much better conversation than calling someone a terrible person because they made a poster. It is hard when one fees much passion, which is why this book is crucial to critical thinking. People before positions is a radical statement in today’s keyboard happy society!
I know what it means to try to run a business ethically. When my courier company went through bankruptcy, I worked very hard to ensure that every employee kept their job, every client continued receiving service and another person was able to take over the company for almost no money. I am proud of how I handled something incredibly painful.
I still lost my business.
That experience taught me something uncomfortable. Ethics matter, but ethics do not always pay the bills.
I am not saying we should use that as an excuse to do whatever we want. I am saying survival is more complicated than it looks from the outside and the lack of kindness is growing online and in person.
Most of us participate in imperfect systems. We use inexpensive delivery services. We shop online. We use self-checkouts. We buy products from companies without knowing how their workers are treated. We may not tip an Uber driver as much as we should. Small business owners sometimes pay people less than they would like because the business simply cannot carry more.
We can judge every one of those choices, but we should probably acknowledge that we make them too. I believe there is a cliche or metaphor about stones and glass houses.
What troubles me most about the AI debate is not that people disagree. We should disagree. There are serious questions about artificial intelligence, copyright, employment, environmental impact and the future of creative work.
What troubles me is the lack of kindness.
The philosophy behind my book, So What?, is about how we speak to each other, but even more importantly, how we listen to each other. We are very good at announcing our opinions. We are less skilled at asking what someone has experienced that makes their position make sense to them. How can we make the world a better place if we do not listen to each other.
Beating people over the head for having a different opinion rarely creates change. It usually creates defensiveness. People stop listening, retreat to their corners and become even more certain that everyone on the other side is unreasonable.
What if, instead of asking whether someone is good or bad for using AI, we asked what brought them to that decision? What if we listened to artists without dismissing their fears? What if we listened to small business owners without assuming they are greedy or lazy? What if we acknowledged that both may be trying to survive the same economic system from completely different positions?
I am not completely for AI, and I am not completely against it. I am interested in understanding what it does, who it helps, who it harms and what responsible use might actually look like. I won’t use it for art, but I have used it to organize thoughts and to pressure test my writing, because I am well known for inverting numbers, thoughts and more. I admit my use, admit when I ethically do not and stand by my choices, open to other’s views.
I also do not believe that boycotting on another woman in business is going to save artists, protect the environment or create better technology. It may make us feel righteous for a few minutes, but then what?
That is the question.
So what?
What happens after the angry comment? Did we change someone’s behaviour? Did we help them understand the issue? Did we make professional design more accessible? Did we support an artist? Did we create a better option for a struggling business owner?
Or did we simply make someone feel ashamed and then move on with our day?
We can support artists and still have compassion for struggling business owners. We can be concerned about AI and still ask questions. We can hold people accountable without humiliating them. We can disagree without becoming cruel.
Before you comment on someone’s AI-generated poster, pause. Ask yourself what you know, what you are assuming and what you still need to learn. Then ask whether your words are likely to create change or simply cause harm.
That is the heart of So What? We clear the noise, examine our lens, listen to each other and decide what we are actually going to do next. We Pause. Reflect. Act. The world becomes better when we do this for ourselves and for each other.
Next week, I will take on another issue and ask the same question.
So what?
Jenn Hayward
