I’ve already lamented the term artificial intelligence for where those two words take many minds.

I’ve also called it the ultimate Rorschach test – it is whatever you see in it, or something like that.

But amid the reams of Medium articles, etc. on how to tell AI and human writing apart, I have mentioned in comments what Perplexity points to – that blind tests already have many folks unable to tell the difference, with results pretty close to flip-of-the-coin random chance (50%).

But while many know how Large Language Models are the sum of human output fed to them, and a word uber-prediction machine, not a “thinker” per se, many still see it as this … robotic “other,” a human creation run amok that is somehow wrong, if not downright evil.

Words, of course, carry positive or negative connotations, which can vary from person to person.

But to me, we need yet another way to look at this new tool, which can recall – notice I didn’t say “thinks” or “knows” – the sum of human output and daresay existence – albeit imperfectly (another odd/dumb term, “hallucinations”) – but way, way beyond what the most genius geniuses can recall, due to the inherent nature of brains vs. how we can now store huge amounts of what’s loosely, imprecisely called “data.”

Somehow, it’s all cast as this tug of war for humans’ future, as in one “side” wins, the other loses, flung into the mud, rope burns on their hands. If you’re “for” AI’s future, you’re “against” humans ruling the roost.