People react to AI tools in wildly different ways. Some embrace them enthusiastically, others dismiss them entirely, but it seems that almost everyone’s relationship with AI follows a predictable path.
Stage 1: Blind faith. “This thing is MAGICAL!” You’ve just discovered ChatGPT and you’re blown away. It writes poetry, explains quantum physics, and seems to know everything. You wonder if the singularity has quietly arrived while nobody was watching.
Stage 2: First doubts. You notice something odd. Maybe it confidently presents fiction as fact, creates a bibliography with completely fabricated sources, or writes code out of context. The spell begins to break.
Stage 3: The backlash. “This is just autocomplete on steroids!” Disappointment morphs into something stronger. You see through the illusion now. Some people camp out here permanently, joining the growing chorus of critics pointing out hallucinations, bias, the job market, and the environmental cost of training these models.
Stage 4: Nuanced understanding. With time, you develop a mental model of what these systems actually do; not “thinking” but statistically predicting text patterns. You learn when they’re reliable and when they’re dangerous. You value them as tools rather than oracles.
Stage 5: Practical integration. You’ve found your personal comfort zone with AI assistance. Maybe you use it extensively but verify important facts, or perhaps you keep it at arm’s length, using it only for specific low-risk tasks.
Interestingly, the most vocal critics and enthusiasts of AI are often those stuck in the early stages. The critics who never moved past their initial skepticism miss genuine utility, while uncritical enthusiasts who never developed healthy skepticism risk being misled.
Where do you fall in this spectrum? And is your position based on experience or preconceived notions about what these tools represent?
