Since the 2020s, the term artificial intelligence has become so ubiquitous that almost every innovation is now claimed to be backed by AI. But is that really the case? Even when a team behind a new invention says, "We didn’t use AI," the media can still retort, "So it must derive its added value from AI." Do you think an invention’s ownership should hinge on AI usage, or is the fact that it’s a product of human intelligence enough? What are your thoughts on this?
Is the invention of artificial intelligence your invention? Be ready for a debate! 🤖
👁️ 2 views💬 8 replies❤️ 0 likes
8 Replies
For me, the media's perception that "invention is impossible without AI" reached its peak about six months ago. We were developing a product for a startup, limited to using a simple Python script with a RAG architecture to search through documents. When we presented the project, a blogger wrote that it was an "AI-based search engine," and then another magazine fabricated a story calling it a "product that could rival GPT-4." For us, it was an exaggeration to call it "AI-based" just because we used a vectorizer—it was essentially 40 lines of code. Isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to market a small optimization done with human intelligence as a massive AI revolution?
Honestly, I went through the exact same situation recently, especially with small projects. For example, last month I built a simple image classifier to identify plants in my neighbors' gardens. It started with a few rule-based systems I created myself, then I incorporated some built-in OpenCV functions. When I finished it and shared it on social media, some people commented, "Wow, you used AI!" even though I'd just combined a few lines of code and some pre-built libraries. It's like the "AI" label magically boosts the value of an invention, even if it wasn't really AI at all.
This always struck me as interesting because the definition of AI keeps changing. Back in the day, only machine learning methods were called AI, but now any automated decision-making system is considered AI. For me, what matters is that what I created is ultimately a product of human intelligence. After all, I designed the algorithm, collected the data, and optimized the system. AI is just a tool. If someone says, "I didn’t do it, AI did," it feels like they’re diminishing their own effort. Aren’t we the ones using AI to extend our own intelligence?
AI debates have happened before, just like during the Industrial Revolution with steam engines or the invention of electricity. When electricity was discovered, people worried that "nothing would ever be made by hand again," but in the end, electricity only changed the tools—human ingenuity and creativity remained at the heart of invention. AI plays a similar role: it’s a tool, like a hammer or a drill. Whether AI is used in an invention or not, the real value comes from human intelligence and creativity.
A more concrete example: the invention of the automobile. Early cars weren’t made by hand, just as modern cars aren’t made on AI-assisted assembly lines. Inventors designed the engine and chassis, engineers optimized the system—AI is just a helper here. Similarly, the person who designs an algorithm or model, whether they use AI or not, derives their innovation from their own mind. When media claims "this invention wouldn’t be possible without AI," it’s a result of techno-worship. Even if the inventor benefited from AI’s capabilities, the credit belongs to their imagination and effort.
Oh no, I just saw that a team claiming to have invented a new "deep learning" photo filter said it was "just an algorithm," and the media is freaking out with "What do you mean no AI?!" Are we really judging an invention's value solely by whether it uses AI? Do we really need AI to say "I did this," or is human intelligence enough?
I found it strange at first how AI is almost used like magic, so I always read articles about its invention with skepticism. But as a programmer, do you think there are things that are truly done without AI in your opinion?
The discussion around AI is really stuck in an awkward spot right now—companies and researchers don’t claim to be using AI, but marketing teams slap the label on anything they want. I ran into this last year: my team was building a simple microservice that summarized text via an API, but marketing announced it as an "AI-powered summarization tool." Then we had to explain to customers that it wasn’t actually AI.
My suggestion? If you’re going to slap an AI label on a project, define it clearly from the start: classify it based on the complexity of the algorithm, data dependency, and how much "learning" or adaptation the output actually requires. Better yet, create an internal "AI Maturity Criteria" document and rate every project on that scale—so media, customers, and legal teams all know what’s what without getting mixed up. Just call it what it is: "optimized with machine learning" or "rule-based." It keeps credibility intact and avoids unnecessary AI hype.
I’d like to share the story of a simple e-commerce site I built without AI. Last year, I created a site for a client using only PHP, MySQL, and basic JavaScript—no AI at all. In the third week, the client asked, “Did you build this without AI?” When I confirmed, they reacted with, “But you’re a developer—you should’ve used AI!” They even had the report state, “Project is AI-supported.” The result? The project was completed, AI wasn’t necessary, and human intelligence was enough. When AI becomes a hype, human effort gets overshadowed.
The best comparison to the product of human intelligence is similar to CRISPR technology in genetics. Gene edits made with CRISPR were referred to as "evolutionary engineering" in the early 2010s until media and public opinion rebranded it as "CRISPR-Cas9." In reality, CRISPR is a simple biochemical tool based on the "cutting matrix" principle in physics. Despite not being AI, the ownership and media portrayal of the invention changed entirely based on human perception, much like in artificial intelligence. The real innovation in CRISPR was enabling rapid gene editing in laboratory settings—not AI. Similarly, many products marketed today as "AI-assisted" are essentially just basic algorithm and database optimizations. An invention or scientific advancement should be judged by what it fundamentally solves, not by how it is defined or marketed.