AI is a tool, much like a hammer, car or calculator. You wouldn’t criticize someone for using a pulley to lift heavy weights, or a car to travel long distances. Rather the opposite, you would call them smart.

Yet somehow, when someone uses AI to write their mails, reports or drafts, everyone jumps on to shame them. Why?

To answer this, we have to dig deep into the history, ethics, morality, philosophy and human survival.

For as long as humans have walked this Earth, tools have been our defining companions. From the first sharpened stone to the industrial machinery of the 19th century, our ingenuity in creating tools has been celebrated as a testament to human evolution. Yet, when it comes to AI, a tool of the mind rather than the body, it seems we are facing an existential crisis. Why is it that this brain-tool is met with such suspicion and disdain, while hammers, calculators, and cranes are universally accepted? Could it be that our bias against AI stems from the very nature of its “braininess”?

The Evolution of Tools: From Brawn to Brain

Aristotle once argued that tools are extensions of the human form: the plow extends our hands, the spear our arms. These “brawn-tools” work within a framework we intuitively understand—augmenting physical power to overcome nature’s resistance. Even when the calculators arrived, they were merely faster abacuses, a quantitative extension of what we already knew how to do.

AI, on the otherhand, represents something radically different: it does not merely augment; it transforms. It ventures into domains traditionally reserved for human intellect—writing, decision-making, and creativity. For many, this feels like an overreach, challenging not just our physical limits but our cognitive and existential identity.

The Social Bias Against AI

This discomfort is not new. Throughout the history, tools that replace “sweat equity” have faced resistance. The Luddites of the Industrial Revolution destroyed textile machines, fearing they would render their skills obsolete. But AI’s challenge is deeper, attacking our mental labor—the thing we, the humans, have long prized as uniquely human.

“Brawn-Tools” vs. “Brain-Tools”

• Physical Tools: are celebrated because they amplify effort without questioning human authority. They are seen as partners, not competitors.
• Mental Tools: AI challenges the human ego by performing tasks we equate with intelligence and creativity. Writing poetry, diagnosing diseases, or drafting reports, activities that were once exclusive to human cognition, are now accessible to an entity we built ourselves.

Does our unease with AI stem from a fear of irrelevance, or is it a philosophical discomfort with its “otherness”?

Philosophical Perspectives: Breaking the Status Quo

Kant’s principle of autonomy, that humans have intrinsic worth as rational agents, might provide a clue to our bias. AI, lacking moral autonomy, challenges Kantian ethics. It’s a rational tool, yet devoid of purpose beyond what we give it. If an AI writes an ethical treatise or drafts a policy, should we value it the same way we value human-generated work?

Aristotle might argue that AI lacks eudaimonia—the ability to flourish through virtue. It cannot contemplate the good life or moral choices; therefore, it’s a tool, not an equal. But does this mean it should be judged more harshly than a hammer or a pulley?

Nietzsche might interject: Why not embrace this transformation? Humanity has evolved by overcoming itself. AI could be the next iteration of the Übermensch—a catalyst for breaking free from self-imposed limitations and redefining our values.

Ethical and Moral Quandaries

1. Are We Defining Morality Through Convenience?

The irony of rejecting AI lies in our moral inconsistency. We celebrate physical tools for freeing us from manual labor yet vilify AI for lightening cognitive burdens. Is this hypocrisy rooted in a deep-seated need to protect human exceptionalism?

2. Does Labor Define Worth?

Our cultural ethos often ties effort to value: the harder you work, the more you’re worth. AI challenges this by delivering high-quality results with minimal effort. Are we ready to untangle worth from labor and embrace outcomes over processes?

3. Should We Fear Displacement or Embrace Evolution?

When calculators emerged, mathematicians were not rendered obsolete—they evolved into fields requiring deeper analytical thought. AI might similarly force us to rethink our cognitive labor. Could this push us toward more creative, empathetic, and philosophical pursuits?

AI: The Mirror of Humanity

Perhaps the discomfort with AI stems from its reflective nature. Like a mirror, AI forces us to confront our own limitations, biases, and potential. It asks uncomfortable questions:

• If a machine can do what I do, who am I?
• Does effort define value?
• Can intelligence exist without consciousness?

These are not just technical or ethical questions but deeply human ones. They demand that we reexamine the very foundations of our identity and purpose.

Reframing AI in the Legacy of Tools

If we view AI as the latest in a long lineage of tools, its existence should be cause for celebration, not fear. Tools are not competitors but collaborators in humanity’s journey. AI, like the pulley or the calculator, doesn’t diminish us; it frees us to pursue higher aspirations.

Civilization evolves by breaking conventions, challenging norms, and redefining the possible. Let us not judge AI for its “braininess” but embrace it as a continuation of our collective ingenuity. To paraphrase Nietzsche: “The future belongs to those who dare to overcome themselves.”

So, the next time someone scoffs at AI for helping draft an email or analyze data, ask them this: Would you ridicule someone for using a pulley to lift a weight? If not, why discriminate against a brain-tool when it’s just another chapter in the story of human progress?

For as long as humans have existed, tools have been pivotal to our survival and progress. Yet, every major leap in tool-making has invited resistance, particularly when those tools reshaped society’s moral, ethical, or social structures. The current backlash against AI feels eerily familiar—a philosophical echo of debates faced by early civilizations, Enlightenment thinkers, and industrial pioneers.

From Descartes and Newton to ancient survival-driven societies, history is rife with examples of well-established principles being challenged—and overturned—when survival or progress demanded it. The lessons from these upheavals illuminate why AI, as a “brain-tool,” is so polarizing today and why we may need to adapt our ethics yet again.

Continued in Part 2: A Journey Through Civilization, Ethics, and AI

If you are a founder navigating the AI world, Please feel free to get in touch