I am getting mixed reviews about the use of AI in the development of an idea for our discussion group. I pick the topic, usually, and then ask Gemini or some other AI to comment on it, or develop it. From my perspective the AI draws in ideas and links from the wide world of the internet that I might have found if I spent the time, but they appear within seconds when the AI does the work. My fundamental idea is still there, but maybe it has been extended by adding associated topics that I did not originally include, at times the AI suggests new perspectives (as we discussed last time), or other information it (is that an AI's pronoun?) associates with my inquiry.
I'm not doing the blog to be graded by someone, and I certainly don't claim that what the AI has added is my original work. I hope you can see, dear reader, that I identify where my work ends and the AI's part begins. I read that instructors who make writing assignments are increasingly getting AI generated responses handed in, and I believe that is probably true. Hand a man a hammer and the world presents a whole lot of nails where the hammer can be used. Develop a way to have the internet generate a paper on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo (whatever that was) and instantly you get back a factually correct term paper in flawless English, with footnotes. The depth and length of the papers you get is only dependent on how clearly you ask for it.
In my personal life I have now added an AI version of Alexa on my voice-only kitchen Echo (the actual devices Amazon sells are Echo's, as you recall). By doing this I have added several new features, like extended responses, not having to say the Wake Word every time but rather we can now have a sort of a conversation, if that is what I want to do at the time, and so forth. I'm not yet sold on the idea that I am getting more this way, but it feels a little different, and I am trying to phrase requests in more complete and probably more complicated ways to see if what I get back as a verbal response is more thorough. In the written version I use for the blog I've seen that the more I put into my request, the more I get back from the AI, and the better the response corresponds to the terms and limits of my inquiry. I also changed the voice to be male, which still sounds a little funny.
My family members report they use AI in their work places, and some use them a lot. It can write a program to do engineering things, for example, which does what was requested and all the of the lines of the code correspond to each other exactly as they should, with no mis-typing or dangling phrases. I can see that would be really useful, and would make the engineer more productive.
So my topic this week boils down to this: Artificial Intelligence is the latest development that has been released in our now internet-dominated environment, and is clearly going to be a fact of life going forward. Is there any reason that we resist it? Is AI a step forward, or a threat in some way? Can we compare our situation to maybe 120 years ago when the automobile was launched as a replacement to horse drawn carriages? People resisted cars at first. And planes. And any other "advancement" that threatens the status-quo? Vaccines? What are your thoughts? <End> I then asked Gemini to comment this text. This is their reply:
<Gemini>
This is a thoughtful and honest reflection on the integration of Artificial Intelligence into your creative and personal life. Your text touches on several core themes that are central to the current public and philosophical conversation about AI.
💡 AI as an Amplifier and Accelerator
Your experience with using AI to develop discussion topics perfectly illustrates AI's power as an accelerator for the idea-generation process.
Efficiency: As you note, AI can instantly draw in "ideas and links from the wide world of the internet that you might have found if you spent the time." This speed isn't about creating something from nothing; it's about turbocharging research and information synthesis, effectively giving you hours back.
Idea Extension: The AI's ability to suggest "associated topics" or "new perspectives" shows its value as an amplifying tool. It takes your "fundamental idea" and instantly maps its connections across a vast body of knowledge, which can be an excellent starting point for a deeper, more nuanced group discussion.
⚖️ The Ethics of Attribution and Originality
You raise a critical distinction between your approach and the concerns of educators:
Responsible Use: You explicitly state that you identify where your work ends and the AI's part begins and don't claim the AI's additions as your "original work." This focus on transparency and attribution is key to ethical AI use in any context, from blogging to business reports.
The "Hammer" Analogy: The metaphor, "Hand a man a hammer and the world presents a whole lot of nails," is spot-on. Technology is a neutral tool; its ethical implications depend entirely on how people choose to use it. AI-generated papers are a problem of academic integrity, not a problem inherent to the AI tool itself.
🛠️ AI in the Workplace: Productivity and Automation
Your family's experience highlights the very real, practical benefits of AI in professional settings:
Increased Productivity: The example of AI writing engineering code "with no mis-typing or dangling phrases" points to AI's strength in automating tedious or error-prone tasks. This doesn't replace the engineer; it elevates their work by allowing them to focus on the higher-level design and problem-solving. AI becomes a force multiplier for skilled professionals.
Iterative Improvement: Your observation that "the more I put into my request, the more I get back from the AI" is the core principle of effective interaction with these tools, often called prompt engineering. The value of AI is increasingly tied to the clarity and specificity of human intent.
🧠A Historical Parallel: Resistance to Change
Your final question offers a fantastic way to frame the discussion: Is AI a step forward, or a threat?
The Automobile Analogy: Comparing the launch of AI to the introduction of the automobile 120 years ago is a powerful historical lens. New, disruptive technologies—cars, planes, the internet, and now AI—always threaten a status quo, often leading to initial resistance, fear, and skepticism.
| New Technology | Status Quo Threatened | Initial Resistance (The "Threat") |
| Automobile | Horse-drawn transport, stable local economy | Noise, speed (danger), pollution, need for new infrastructure |
| Internet | Traditional media, physical commerce, centralized knowledge | Information overload, spread of misinformation, security risks |
| Artificial Intelligence | Cognitive tasks, human creativity, job roles | Job displacement, bias, misuse (plagiarism), existential risk |
The pattern is consistent: major advancements create immediate problems and uncertainty, but they ultimately redefine the economy and society in ways that are generally considered beneficial overall.
Your central question for your discussion group is excellent: Is the current resistance to AI a sensible caution against genuine threats, or is it simply the predictable friction that occurs whenever a tool that fundamentally changes the nature of work and life is introduced?