AI won’t replace creators, it reveals them. On Substack, the future isn’t AI vs. human but a premium on authorship, clarity, and trust in every word we choose.
As always, some great insight into the trust dynamics! One thing it made me think about is how AI here represents a particular subset (generative AI), but the issues at play with any given AI are subject to the bleedover from the more mythical, all-encompassing AI that we associate with techno-political shift. So sometimes the trust issues are about the technology at hand; sometimes they are about Technology. Or maybe it’s always about both, and that’s what makes it so hard to talk about.
This cuts right to the marrow of the AI trust conversation: the bleed between a tool and The Technology. Between the mundane and the mythic. Between ChatGPT proofreading your newsletter and the looming specter of a synthetic mind more convincing, and eventually more trusted, than our own.
We start by talking about generative AI: models, prompts, word prediction. Then suddenly we’re grappling with epistemic collapse, labor devaluation, and the uncanny erosion of authorship. Because the minute you say “AI,” you’re not just invoking software. You’re invoking symbol. The totem. The prophecy. And that’s why these conversations are so slippery; we’re rarely reacting to the tool in front of us. We’re reacting to its shadow.
And somewhere in that shadow sits qualia, our inner life, our lived texture, our ineffable “what-it’s-like”-to-be experience. For now, that’s what separates us. But we’re edging toward a moment where even that distinction starts to blur. When machines can simulate empathy, grief, and insight well enough to perform humanity, will the world still care if there’s nothing on the inside?
Because if systems reward the appearance of wisdom, not its origin, then qualia becomes an aesthetic flourish. Not a moral argument. And that might not be enough.
Perhaps the only way forward is to remain aware of the bleed. To ask ourselves constantly: Am I reacting to the tech, or to the myth, or to what it threatens? Until we can identify that difference, we’ll continue to misplace our trust. And when the simulation finally outperforms the original, we may find ourselves asking, too late, what was ever real to begin with.
Great article thanks. You summarise the points well.
I’m actually writing a post this week on how we need to almost prove now that we are a real person and how features on Substack such as video and live video can help make you feel more real to your readers. This then adds credibility to your writing.
As always, some great insight into the trust dynamics! One thing it made me think about is how AI here represents a particular subset (generative AI), but the issues at play with any given AI are subject to the bleedover from the more mythical, all-encompassing AI that we associate with techno-political shift. So sometimes the trust issues are about the technology at hand; sometimes they are about Technology. Or maybe it’s always about both, and that’s what makes it so hard to talk about.
This cuts right to the marrow of the AI trust conversation: the bleed between a tool and The Technology. Between the mundane and the mythic. Between ChatGPT proofreading your newsletter and the looming specter of a synthetic mind more convincing, and eventually more trusted, than our own.
We start by talking about generative AI: models, prompts, word prediction. Then suddenly we’re grappling with epistemic collapse, labor devaluation, and the uncanny erosion of authorship. Because the minute you say “AI,” you’re not just invoking software. You’re invoking symbol. The totem. The prophecy. And that’s why these conversations are so slippery; we’re rarely reacting to the tool in front of us. We’re reacting to its shadow.
And somewhere in that shadow sits qualia, our inner life, our lived texture, our ineffable “what-it’s-like”-to-be experience. For now, that’s what separates us. But we’re edging toward a moment where even that distinction starts to blur. When machines can simulate empathy, grief, and insight well enough to perform humanity, will the world still care if there’s nothing on the inside?
Because if systems reward the appearance of wisdom, not its origin, then qualia becomes an aesthetic flourish. Not a moral argument. And that might not be enough.
Perhaps the only way forward is to remain aware of the bleed. To ask ourselves constantly: Am I reacting to the tech, or to the myth, or to what it threatens? Until we can identify that difference, we’ll continue to misplace our trust. And when the simulation finally outperforms the original, we may find ourselves asking, too late, what was ever real to begin with.
Boom! Love it! 🔥
Great overview!
“Rigidly organized chaos goblin” is extremely relatable
Great article thanks. You summarise the points well.
I’m actually writing a post this week on how we need to almost prove now that we are a real person and how features on Substack such as video and live video can help make you feel more real to your readers. This then adds credibility to your writing.