I've been looking at how people talk about artificial intelligence, or AI. It seems we're very quick to give AI control over important things without really thinking about what it can and can't do. This idea that AI is completely new is interesting, but it's actually part of a much longer story about how humans have always tried to make machines that can communicate.

This is similar to how people used to believe in spirits in non-living things, or animism. When new communication tools like the telegraph were invented, some people thought they could even talk to people who had passed away or were far away. Later, with the radio, there were stories about mysterious voices heard through the airwaves. It's like we've always looked for something almost magical in these new technologies, even when the people creating them knew about the real costs, like where the power came from.

The way we talk about AI now, with excitement or worry, is a lot like how people reacted to these earlier technologies. Sometimes people say AI can't do what humans can, like being a scholar or an artist, and other times they worry it will take over. But often, these worries are based on small, unusual events, like an AI writing a book that isn't very good. This actually tells us more about the limitations of some kinds of thinking and the people who read it, rather than about AI itself.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article discusses how people talk about AI but does not offer any steps or advice for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by drawing parallels between historical communication technologies (telegraph, radio) and current AI discussions, suggesting a pattern of human fascination and apprehension with new communication tools. It touches on the historical context of animism and early beliefs in communication with the distant or deceased. However, it does not delve deeply into the technical aspects of AI or provide detailed explanations of its capabilities and limitations.

Personal Relevance: The topic of AI is personally relevant as it is increasingly integrated into daily life and impacts future work, communication, and societal structures. The article touches on how people perceive AI, which is relevant to understanding public discourse, but it doesn't directly explain how AI might affect an individual's life in practical terms.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It does not offer warnings, safety advice, or official information. It discusses public perception and historical parallels rather than providing direct assistance or guidance.

Practicality of Advice: No advice is given in the article, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article could have a minor long-term impact by encouraging readers to think critically about their perceptions of AI and to recognize historical patterns in technological adoption. However, it does not provide concrete actions for long-term benefit.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article might have a mildly positive psychological impact by framing current AI anxieties within a broader historical context, potentially reducing feelings of unprecedented fear or panic. It suggests that current reactions are not entirely new and are part of a human tendency to anthropomorphize technology.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven language. The tone is reflective and analytical rather than sensational.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article misses a significant opportunity to provide more practical guidance. For instance, it could have offered resources for learning about AI's actual capabilities and limitations, suggested ways to critically evaluate AI-generated content, or provided advice on how to approach AI in personal or professional contexts. A normal person could find better information by looking up reputable AI research institutions, reading articles from established technology journalists, or exploring online courses on AI literacy.

The text describes a societal fascination with new communication technologies, from ancient animism to modern AI, and how this fascination often leads to exaggerated expectations and fears. While this fascination may seem harmless, it can have significant implications for the fundamental bonds that hold families and communities together.

The idea that AI, or any technology, can possess magical or superhuman qualities, can lead to a dangerous shift in responsibility and trust. When people believe that AI can take on roles traditionally fulfilled by humans, such as scholarly pursuits or artistic expression, it can diminish the value and importance of human skills and knowledge. This, in turn, may lead to a neglect of personal duties and a reliance on technology to fulfill these roles, potentially weakening family structures and community bonds.

For example, if parents believe that AI can educate their children as well as, or better than, human teachers, they may become less involved in their children's learning and development, thereby neglecting a fundamental duty of parenthood. This could lead to a breakdown in the transmission of cultural knowledge and values, which are essential for the survival and continuity of the community.

Similarly, the fear of AI taking over, while often exaggerated, can create an atmosphere of distrust and uncertainty within communities. This fear may lead to a reluctance to embrace new technologies, which could have potential benefits for the community, such as improved communication or resource management. It could also foster an environment of suspicion and division, where community members are more focused on the perceived threats of technology rather than on the collective well-being and survival.

The text also highlights a tendency to overlook the limitations of technology and the people who use it. For instance, the example of an AI-written book being of poor quality is a reminder that technology is only as good as the humans who create and utilize it. This oversight can lead to a false sense of security or a lack of critical thinking, which are essential skills for community survival and adaptation.

Furthermore, the idea of spirits in non-living things, or animism, while seemingly harmless, can also have negative consequences. If community members believe that spirits inhabit everyday objects or technologies, it could lead to a fear or reverence of these objects, potentially causing division or even conflict within the community.

In conclusion, the widespread acceptance of these ideas and behaviors, if left unchecked, could lead to a gradual erosion of family structures, a neglect of community duties, and a decline in the stewardship of the land. It is essential for community members to maintain a healthy skepticism and critical thinking when it comes to new technologies, while also recognizing the value and importance of human skills, knowledge, and responsibilities. By doing so, communities can ensure the protection of their most vulnerable members, uphold family duties, and secure the survival and continuity of their people.

This text uses a strawman trick by misrepresenting concerns about AI. It says, "Sometimes people say AI can't do what humans can, like being a scholar or an artist, and other times they worry it will take over." This sets up a false dichotomy, making it seem like the only worries are about AI's artistic or scholarly abilities or a complete takeover. It ignores more nuanced concerns about AI's impact on jobs, privacy, or ethical decision-making. This framing makes the opposing viewpoint seem less serious or well-founded.

The text uses a trick of generalization to dismiss concerns about AI. It states, "But often, these worries are based on small, unusual events, like an AI writing a book that isn't very good." This suggests that all AI worries stem from minor, isolated incidents. It implies that these concerns are not based on broader patterns or potential future risks. This wording downplays the validity of widespread anxieties about AI's development and deployment.

The text presents a false equivalence by comparing human belief in spirits to modern reactions to AI. It says, "This is like how people used to believe in spirits in non-living things, or animism." This comparison suggests that our current excitement or fear of AI is simply a continuation of ancient, irrational beliefs. It implies that our understanding of AI is as unscientific as believing in spirits. This comparison aims to make current concerns seem superstitious rather than based on evolving technology.

The text uses a subtle form of bias by framing the creators of past technologies as having a more realistic understanding. It says, "even when the people creating them knew about the real costs, like where the power came from." This implies that current AI creators might not be as aware of the "real costs." It creates a contrast that suggests a potential lack of foresight or responsibility in today's AI development. This wording subtly casts doubt on the current generation of innovators.

The text expresses a sense of caution regarding the public's perception and application of artificial intelligence. This caution is evident in the opening statement about people being "very quick to give AI control over important things without really thinking." This emotion is moderately strong and serves to alert the reader to a potential problem. The writer uses this caution to guide the reader's reaction by suggesting a need for more thoughtful consideration of AI's capabilities and limitations, aiming to change the reader's opinion from uncritical acceptance to a more measured approach.

A feeling of curiosity is also present, particularly when the writer notes the "interesting" idea that AI is completely new, but then immediately reframes it as part of a "much longer story." This curiosity is mild and serves to draw the reader into a historical perspective, suggesting that understanding the past can illuminate the present. This helps build trust by presenting a well-researched viewpoint.

The text conveys a sense of wonder or perhaps nostalgia when discussing earlier communication technologies like the telegraph and radio. Phrases like "talk to people who had passed away" and "mysterious voices" evoke a feeling of enchantment or a search for the extraordinary in technology. This emotion is moderately strong and is used to create a parallel between past and present reactions to new inventions, suggesting that our current fascination with AI is not entirely novel. This comparison aims to normalize the current excitement while also subtly hinting at the potential for over-imagination.

Underlying the discussion is a subtle skepticism towards exaggerated claims about AI. This is seen in the dismissal of worries based on "small, unusual events, like an AI writing a book that isn't very good." This skepticism is moderately strong and serves to debunk unfounded fears, aiming to change the reader's opinion by showing that anxieties are often disproportionate to the reality.

The writer employs several tools to enhance the emotional impact and guide the reader. The comparison of AI to earlier technologies like the telegraph and radio is a key persuasive technique, drawing a parallel that suggests a recurring human tendency to imbue new inventions with almost magical qualities. This comparison is not just informative but also persuasive, as it frames the current AI discourse within a historical pattern, implying that a more grounded perspective is warranted. The writer also uses phrases that subtly downplay extreme reactions, such as calling the AI-written book "isn't very good," which is a mild understatement that serves to highlight the absurdity of basing significant fears on such minor events. This technique aims to steer the reader's thinking away from alarmist interpretations and towards a more balanced understanding, ultimately fostering a sense of reasoned judgment rather than emotional reactivity.