Effete Weaponization of AI By Petulant Pundits

Assisted Intelligence—not “artificial” intelligence—is the only honest way to describe the technology reshaping the world today. Yet the phrase “artificial intelligence” has been weaponized as a political and media cudgel by effete Malthusian snobs—petulant critics of the tech and social media world who have never built, programmed, or seriously engaged with these tools beyond loud, uninformed condemnation. These critics are disconnected from the reality that every AI system starts and ends with human intelligence: humans design, manage, and interpret machine output. Instead, these self-styled pundits feed fear and division for clicks and prestige, choking the public discourse and derailing progress.

The phrase “artificial intelligence” was coined nearly seventy years ago at the dawn of computer science. It sounded thrilling—evoking the idea that machines might soon think like humans, or perhaps better than humans. The term’s staying power has little to do with accuracy and everything to do with allure. “Artificial” suggests autonomy, imitation, even threat. It makes good theater, excellent marketing, and irresistible clickbait. But it errs fundamentally in portraying these systems as capable of independent intelligence. They are not.

Every AI system begins and ends with human intelligence.

A large language model or image generator is only as meaningful as the human ingenuity that shapes its architecture, feeds it curated data, and guides its use. The human user’s prompt, question, or command provides the intellectual ignition that transforms latent mathematical potential into directed purpose. Without that human intent, the system is inert—a massive calculator waiting for a mind to engage it.

That is why “assisted intelligence” is the more accurate and constructive term. It restores the proper hierarchy between human and tool. The relationship is not adversarial, but symbiotic. Machines extend our intelligence; they do not replace it. The word “assisted” underscores collaboration. Just as a writer relies on an editor, a scientist on instruments, or an architect on modeling software, humans collaborate with computational systems to amplify what already exists: human thought.

The continued use of “artificial” has done real damage to clear thinking about technology. It fuels wild polarization: utopians worshiping AI as salvation, dystopians warning of apocalypse. This public spectacle mirrors the oldest media maxim: “if it bleeds, it leads.” Extreme claims get clicks while reasoned analysis falls silent. As a result, serious debates on real risks and opportunities get drowned in hysteria.

Take the endless debates over whether AI can think, feel, or take over the world. These questions assume “artificial” means autonomous intelligence—a myth. What these systems do is sophisticated pattern recognition and probabilistic reasoning—powerful, yes, but extensions of human creativity, not replacements. The very best of AI is human-designed, human-fed, and human-managed, making “assisted intelligence” the honest descriptor.

Tools are always criticized, I was forbidden the use of my slide rule in high school tests, my children were required to use HP Calculators but forbidden use of Math Software Apps, today AI is under attack in schools as an inappropriate cheating crutch. History has proven those professing these “crutches” as forbidden in education are clearly the pedantic numbskulls we should never allow near our children, let alone teach them!

All intellectual progress depends on forms of assistance. From abacuses to printing presses to the scientific method itself, human collaboration with tools is age-old and essential. Labeling current computational advances as “artificial” disguises the centuries-long trajectory of human ingenuity amplified by better instruments.

Today’s breakthrough is scale and speed: machines navigate petabytes and express results in natural language almost instantly. This turbocharges human intellect, but requires management. Without understanding and oversight, assisted intelligence risks reflecting our ignorance faster, not advancing knowledge.

The right approach is explicit partnership: humans as directors and editors, machines as amplifiers and collaborators. The best practitioners treat their tools as fallible colleagues, probing and interpreting their output with skill. That collaborative spirit is the real meaning of assisted intelligence.

Naysayers cry “cheating” or “dehumanization,” echoing fears once leveled at calculators and word processors. Those fears were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Tools free us to focus on creativity and insight; the pattern will repeat if we resist alarmism.

Moreover, many critics trade on mystification. Their “AI threat” narratives boost their social capital in the attention economy, but cloak genuine innovation behind fear-mongering. Meanwhile, practitioners quietly expand human capacity with assisted intelligence’s promise.

Changing language is not mere semantics—it reshapes education, policy, investment, and discourse. Embracing “assisted intelligence” grounds us in reality and enables clearer focus on transparency, ethics, and accountability, not fantasy.

The phrase “artificial intelligence” had its moment to inspire. Now it obscures more than it reveals, inviting both worship and fear. The human future belongs not to artificial minds, but to people who understand collaboration with digital partners.

Intelligence—natural or assisted—is the ability to ask meaningful questions, interpret context, and seek understanding. Machines amplify this quest; the spark is ours alone. Calling it artificial sells short the power and promise of assisted intelligence.

For more on the realities of assisted intelligence and its role in transforming knowledge and science, see my posts here and here.

References

• John McCarthy, “the science of making machines do things that would require intelligence if done by people”​

• “Assisted, augmented, and autonomous intelligence represent a spectrum, with assisted intelligence always involving a human in the loop…”​

• “Leading short-term threat to global stability and democratic processes”​

• “The apparent coherence of [AI] interviews stemmed from … the enormous corpus of human writing that the system drew from…”​

• NewsGuard: Over 2,000 AI-generated fake news sites worldwide​

• “Labeling systems as ‘AI’ can lead to algorithm aversion especially when errors occur…”​

• McCarthy’s intent: “to understand us”​