The Uncomfortable Embrace of AI
…there is nothing AI about this.
Anderson Cooper, CNN, on the Artemis Landing and return to Earth
…these things need to learn to adapt, Murph, like the rest of us
Interstellar
Does anyone know the name George Platzer?
It’s understandable if you haven’t heard of him, even though we live in an age where it feels like we know everything, everywhere, all at once. Engineer George Platzer introduced the concept of blind-spot management in a 1995 paper. He later obtained a patent for a mirror-based design, which was commercially launched in the 2003 Volvo XC90 SUV to reduce lane-change accidents.
I first experienced Platzer’s innovation when I bought a used 2016 red Mazda 3. I admit I’m a late adopter, but I can’t deny how much this technology has improved driving safety. Now, features like rear-view cameras, radar-based self-driving, and self-parking are ubiquitous. Still, no matter how accustomed I become to these tools, I always find myself turning my head to check for a child on a bike or to ensure the lane is clear. In some ways, I’m slow to adopt new technology. You might call me a Luddite or a technophobe—I feel uneasy about driverless cars and robots, whether they are humanoids, cobots, or AMRs.
I’m an analog person living in a swipe-and-skim world. I enjoy turning the pages of real books and don’t mind carrying them instead of using a Kindle. I prefer sticky notes to digital boards, writing by hand to typing, and meeting clients face-to-face instead of on Zoom. I value unexpected moments and resist relinquishing my thinking to algorithms or automation, even if it means missing out on some productivity. I also worry, as the MIT Media Lab study suggests, that relying too much on AI could lead to “cognitive atrophy.” Most importantly I’m concerned about my talented colleagues in design, technology and programming, as the threat of human obsolescence looms over many professions and livelihoods.
I openly admit that I embody the caution mentioned by Alec Ross. As he says, “Serendipity fades with everything we hand over to algorithms.” The hidden influence of algorithms on our choices feels increasingly obvious and widespread, and I find myself resisting the urge to give in completely for the sake of convenience. Still, I’m amazed by how quickly some people embrace AI, evident in the fandom surrounding OpenClaw and its legion of “lobsters” applying for a “heartbeat” system transplant that acts on its own initiative – YIKES!
Nevertheless, I do see the benefits. I’m hopeful that AI will help diagnose endometriosis more quickly, that CRISPR will enhance our understanding of biology, and that we may find a cure for dementia as I age. I also believe future technologies fueling transhumanism could benefit my longevity, cognition, and well-being. You see the dilemma—it’s an uncomfortable embrace, a productive tension, both a benefit and a risk, a cautionary tale wrapped in a wish.
I doubt I’m the only one who feels conflicted. Watching the Artemis splashdown was amazing—a real tribute to science, technology, and human creativity. But what really caught my attention was Anderson Cooper on CNN, proudly saying, “There is nothing AI about this,” as he described the excitement of the manually performed ‘open hatch’ moment. That sounded like a kind of resistance to me. More recently, Pope Leo XIV’s social encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, broke with tradition and the usual separation of church and state by joining the AI debate. He used words like ‘disarmament,’ as if AI were a weapon, and stressed the need to protect ‘authentic human relationships from its wake.’ At the same time, Mark Carney’s ‘AI for All’ treats AI as a business project, focusing on shaping policy, regulation, and adoption around Trust, Opportunity, and Sovereignty. Both examples show that people are increasingly worried that innovation is moving faster than our efforts to make AI safe for the future. It really feels like we’re playing catch up inventing the rules in real time rather than preemptively.
So, why the ambivalence? It comes down to a big question I keep asking myself: Have we reached a plateau, and did AI arrive just in time? Are we, as a species, hitting the limits of our ability to self-innovate? Perhaps our fascination with AI is a coping mechanism for fears and questions we haven’t yet answered about the universe and less about ourselves. Research as well as a prevailing notion is that modern science is less about big breakthroughs and more about building upon existing knowledge. As author Tony Fry states, “As technology expands the reach of the mind, comprehension of what it actually is and how it ontologically designs diminishes.”
Perhaps AI arrived at the perfect moment in our evolution. However, I believe that experience requires effort, and we should not let convenience replace it. We need to use and preserve our remarkable mammalian reflexes and instincts, or we risk losing the qualities that helped us survive as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, venture out into the world, make your own choices, avoid instant gratification, embrace discomfort, explore and cherish tactile experiences over virtual ones and appreciate the slow rewards of discovery that come only with the gradual passage of time.
_____________________________________________________________
This article intends to spark discussion and debate. If it resonates with you, please share your thoughts on the three simple questions below.
- Are you conflicted about the current and future use of AI? If so, why?
- Do you feel the fears and apprehension in the article are misplaced?
- Do you think regulations or controls are necessary to limit AI interventions?
- How has AI impacted you—positively (in a life-changing way) or negatively (as a threat to your livelihood)?
As this article is being written Meta has released 8,000 of its employees from 10% of its work force as part of a major restructuring to shift focus and resources heavily toward artificial intelligence.
Thank you for reading, and even more for sharing your perspective.