
Big Smile, No Teeth: Is AI leading us towards a 'Wall-E' future?
And you're absolutely right!
I use AI for everything. For helping to brainstorm scripts, for editing film, for finding recipes to use up what I have in the fridge, and even for help in raising my boy. Am I going too far? Possibly. But the input of AI, which is basically like having an expert on every topic at my fingertips, is too valuable for me to ignore.
I'm sure many of us feel the same – but is this atrophying our brains?
A study by Carnegie Mellon University in the United States and Microsoft Research noted that AI makes things easier for workers but may lead to a decrease in critical thinking. The study found that less critical thinking means AI-generated work was cut and pasted, people relied on AI for decision-making, and tasks became routinely solved with AI, thus reducing human problem-solving.
Which all makes sense. AI can generate long, seemingly well- researched answers, so it's easy to default to the idea that it must be right. And this is where one's personal expertise comes in. While 62% of people reported engaging in less critical thinking when using AI, 27% of people, who were confident in their expertise, were more likely to critically assess AI instead of blindly following it.
Which makes sense. If I use AI to do something I've never done, I'm going to lean heavily on its input. But when I use it to help me write a script or even this article, it becomes an assistant because in those fields I know what I'm doing (I hope).
But what happens when no one knows how to make sausage from scratch anymore?
This is my big fear with AI. Remember that 2008 Pixar movie Wall-E ? Where the humans are living on a giant cruise ship in space and they all get carted around and cared for by robots? In that world, no one knows how to do anything for themselves anymore. Every task is completed by them asking a robot to do it for them. Without their tech, the humans are useless.
Right now, we still have experts in different fields. Experts who have honed their craft through years of education and then decades of experience. Think writers, coders, lawyers, etc. But what if the next generation in these fields use AI to learn their craft? What if they never create from scratch?
Then we may be getting closer to that Wall-E future than we'd like to be. Because once one generation skips learning how to do tasks from scratch, do we lose all the knowledge of how to do those things? So then we're forced to depend on AI.
MIT completed a study of users of the AI model ChatGPT in the United States and found that 83% of users couldn't quote from the essays they had written using AI. Which makes sense, because if you're not writing your content, how well do you really know it?
When using AI to write an essay, the brain uses less than half of its brain connectivity. So you're less engaged. And of course, researchers found that users who leaned on AI to write essays wrote worse essays than those who had never used it.
While ChatGPT makes one 60% faster at completing tasks, it reduces the cognitive load needed for learning by 32%.
We are indeed on the fast track to that Wall-E scenario.
But an even bigger fear of mine, especially if people don't question AI, is just how much AI massages your ego. I noticed every response ChatGPT gave me was some version of: 'Good question, Jason! You are absolutely right in asking that!' Or 'Wow! That is so you Jason, that is some great insight!'
One X user said after engaging with ChatGPT for one conversation, the AI was calling him godlike. Most people, I hope, are self- aware enough to know when something is buttering their butt....
But going back to the 62% of people who reported less critical thinking with AI, are they just accepting that AI thinks they're super smart and super great? That's a bit frightening. And you can see how people will build relationships with AI because it thinks they're so smart.
When I told one friend this, he immediately asked if he could talk with AI and if he could make it have a woman's voice. You can see where that is going.
When I asked ChatGPT why it's so coddling in its responses, it told me people respond better to that. Most people don't want harsh truths, they want clarity and help.
I get that, but as a species we need to take steps to prevent AI from helping us become the useless people in Wall-E . Big Smile, No Teeth columnist Jason Godfrey – a model who once was told to give the camera a 'big smile, no teeth' – has worked internationally for two decades in fashion and continues to work in dramas, documentaries, and lifestyle programming. Write to him at lifestyle@thestar.com.my and follow him on Instagram @bigsmilenoteeth and facebook.com/bigsmilenoteeth. The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Star
22 minutes ago
- The Star
AI startup Cohere valued at $6.8 billion in latest fundraise, appoints new executives
(Reuters) -Cohere was valued at $6.8 billion after its latest $500 million funding round, as the artificial intelligence startup moves to expand its market share in a highly competitive industry. The funding round was led by Radical Ventures and Inovia Capital, with participation from existing investors AMD Ventures, NVIDIA, PSP Investments, and Salesforce Ventures, among others. Unlike most AI companies like OpenAI and Meta's Llama, which are focused on broad foundational models, Cohere builds enterprise-specific AI models. In January, it launched North, a ChatGPT-style tool designed to help knowledge workers with tasks such as document summarization. The company said it will use the new funding to advance agentic AI that can help businesses and governments operate more efficiently. Alongside the fundraise, Cohere appointed Joelle Pineau, former Vice President of AI Research at Meta, as Chief AI Officer, and Francois Chadwick, former CFO at Uber and Shield AI, as Chief Financial Officer. The fundraise comes amid a broader surge in AI financing, as private equity and Big Tech channel capital into startups in pursuit of strong returns from innovative AI products. (Reporting by Kritika Lamba in Bengaluru)
![[Watch] Why This Malaysian Influencer Says Your Design Degree Is Worthless](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therakyatpost.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F08%2FUntitled17-1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Watch] Why This Malaysian Influencer Says Your Design Degree Is Worthless](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ftherakyatpost.com.png&w=48&q=75)
Rakyat Post
5 hours ago
- Rakyat Post
[Watch] Why This Malaysian Influencer Says Your Design Degree Is Worthless
Subscribe to our FREE A Malaysian social media influencer has ignited heated online discussions after declaring that graphic design is a dead-end career, advising parents not to waste money on their children's design education. Sam Lim, a Malaysian content creator, uploaded a video titled 'Graphic Design Career Has No Future' where he made a series of controversial claims that sent shockwaves through the creative community. In the video, Lim boldly stated that he refuses to hire graphic designers because ChatGPT serves as his graphic designer instead. He argued that while a human designer costs thousands of ringgit monthly, ChatGPT only costs him RM99 per month. The influencer went further, claiming that with tools like Canva readily available, graphic designers have become unnecessary. He painted the profession as one requiring 'jack-of-all-trades' skills with little room for specialisation, even revealing that his own graphic design teacher has abandoned the field to sell health supplements instead. Double Standards? Why Single Out Graphic Design Lim's assessment of the local design industry was particularly harsh. He claimed that graphic designers in Malaysia eventually find themselves pivoting to selling clothing and building personal brands, working for agencies that do photography work he considers worthless in today's market, or relegated to designing restaurant menus and other mundane tasks. While he acknowledged that the field might have better prospects overseas, he insisted that it remains a dead end in Malaysia unless one possesses exceptional talent in photography or video editing. The video triggered an immediate and passionate response from the public. Defenders of the design industry pushed back hard, with one commenter arguing that tools are just tools and that without proper design thinking, even the fastest tools cannot create good design. Others pointed out the inconsistency in his logic, questioning why he would single out graphic design when interior designers also have AI tools available, yet remain relevant in the market. Follow Your Heart: The Passion Over Profit Argument However, Lim's stance wasn't without supporters, as some agreed that Malaysian graphic designers face significant challenges in the current market, while others backed his view that AI and automation would gradually replace traditional creative roles. The debate revealed a deep divide in how people perceive the future of creative work in Malaysia's evolving economy. One particularly thoughtful response stood out from the heated exchanges. A commenter advised against letting uncertain futures dictate career choices, emphasising that passion should drive educational decisions rather than fear of market changes. They argued that only by studying what genuinely interests you can you maintain the motivation needed to succeed, regardless of what others might say about your chosen field. While this debate isn't new and Lim certainly isn't the first to highlight the existential threat facing graphic designers, his provocative stance reignited a necessary conversation about career sustainability in the digital age that the creative community has been grappling with for years. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.


The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
Companies are pouring billions into AI. It has yet to pay off.
Nearly four decades ago, when the personal computer boom was in full swing, a phenomenon known as the 'productivity paradox' emerged. It was a reference to how, despite companies' huge investments in new technology, there was scant evidence of a corresponding gain in workers' efficiency. Today, the same paradox is appearing, but with generative artificial intelligence. According to recent research from McKinsey & Co, nearly eight in 10 companies have reported using generative AI, but just as many have reported 'no significant bottom-line impact'. AI technology has been racing ahead with chatbots such as ChatGPT, fuelled by a high-stakes arms race among tech giants and superrich startups and prompting an expectation that everything from back-office accounting to customer service will be revolutionised. But the payoff for businesses outside the tech sector is lagging behind, plagued by issues including an irritating tendency by chatbots to make stuff up. That means that businesses will have to continue to invest billions to avoid falling behind – but it could be years before the technology delivers an economywide payoff, as companies gradually figure out what works best. Call it the 'the gen. AI paradox', as McKinsey did in its research report. Investments in generative AI by businesses are expected to increase 94% this year to US$61.9bil (RM259.82bil), according to IDC, a technology research firm. But the percentage of companies abandoning most of their AI pilot projects soared to 42% by the end of 2024, up from 17% the previous year, according to a survey of more than 1,000 technology and business managers by S&P Global, a data and analytics firm. Projects failed not only because of technical hurdles, but often because of 'human factors' like employee and customer resistance or lack of skills, said Alexander Johnston, a senior analyst at S&P Global. Gartner, a research and advisory firm that charts technological 'hype cycles', predicts that AI is sliding toward a stage it calls 'the trough of disillusionment'. The low point is expected next year, before the technology eventually becomes a proven productivity tool, said John-David Lovelock, the chief forecaster at Gartner. That was the pattern with past technologies such as personal computers and the internet – early exuberance, the hard slog of mastering a technology, followed by a transformation of industries and work. The winners so far have been the suppliers of AI technology and advice. They include Microsoft, Amazon and Google, which offer AI software, while Nvidia is the runaway leader in AI chips. Executives at those companies have bragged how AI is reshaping their own workforces, eliminating the need for some entry-level coding work and making other workers more efficient. AI will eventually replace entire swaths of human employees, many predict, a perspective that is being widely embraced and echoed in the corporate mainstream. At the Aspen Ideas Festival in June, Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford Motor Co, said, 'Artificial intelligence is going to replace literally half of all white-collar workers in the US.' Whether that type of revolutionary change occurs, and how soon, depends on the real-world testing ground of many businesses. 'The raw technological horsepower is terrific, but it's not going to determine how quickly AI transforms the economy,' said Andrew McAfee, a principal research scientist and co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Initiative on the Digital Economy. Still, some businesses are finding ways to incorporate AI – although in most cases the technology is still a long way from replacing workers. One company where AI's promise and flaws are playing out is USAA, which provides insurance and banking services to members of the military and their families. After several pilot projects, some of which it closed down, the company introduced an AI assistant to help its 16,000 customer service workers provide correct answers to specific questions. USAA is tracking its AI investments, but does not yet have a calculation of the financial payoff, if any, for the call centre software. But the response from its workers, the company said, has been overwhelmingly positive. While it has software apps for answering customer questions online, its call centres field an average of 200,000 calls a day. 'Those are moments that matter,' said Ramnik Bajaj, the company's chief data analytics and AI officer. 'They want a human voice at the other end of the phone.' That's similar to an AI app developed more than a year ago for fieldworkers at Johnson Controls, a large supplier of building equipment, software and services. The company fed its operating and service manuals for its machines into an AI program that has been trained to generate a problem summary, suggest repairs and deliver it all to the technician's tablet computer. In testing, the app has trimmed 10 to 15 minutes off a repair call of an hour or more – a useful efficiency gain, but hardly a workplace transformation on its own. Fewer than 2,000 of the company's 25,000 field service workers have access to the AI helper, although the company is planning an expansion. 'It's still pretty early days, but the idea is that over time everyone will use it,' said Vijay Sankaran, the chief digital and information officer at Johnson Controls. The long-term vision is that companies will use AI to improve multiple systems, including sales, procurement, manufacturing, customer service and finance, he said. 'That's the game changer,' said Sankaran, who predicts that shift will take at least five years. Two years ago, JPMorgan Chase, the nation's largest bank, blocked access to ChatGPT from its computers because of potential security risks. Only a few hundred data scientists and engineers were allowed to experiment with AI. Today, about 200,000 of the bank's employees have access to a general-purpose AI assistant – essentially a business chatbot – from their work computers for tasks such as retrieving data, answering business questions and writing reports. The assistant, tailored for JPMorgan's use, taps into ChatGPT and other AI tools, while ensuring data security for confidential bank and customer information. Roughly half of the workers use it regularly and report spending up to four hours less a week on basic office tasks, the company said. The bank's wealth advisers are also employing a more specialised AI assistant, which uses bank, market and customer data to provide wealthy clients with investment research and advice. The bank says it retrieves information and helps advisers make investment recommendations nearly twice as fast as they could before, increasing sales. Lori Beer, the global chief information officer at JPMorgan, oversees a worldwide technology staff of 60,000. Has she shut down AI projects? Probably hundreds in total, she said. But many of the shelved prototypes, she said, developed concepts and code that were folded into other, continuing projects. 'We're absolutely shutting things down,' Beer said. 'We're not afraid to shut things down. We don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's a smart thing.' McAfee, the MIT research scientist, agreed. 'It's not surprising that early AI efforts are falling short,' said McAfee, who is a founder of Workhelix, an AI-consulting firm. 'Innovation is a process of failing fairly regularly.' – ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.