Beautifully said Robert. It's not technology that we must guard against, but rather the tendency to anthropomorphize it. I don't describe human traits to my car or even my cell phone. No reason to do this with AI either, despite its slick interface.
Thank you, Robert. Our shared humanity—the synergy of heart and mind—goes far beyond what we usually call intelligence. AI can only imitate the heart, because the heart is rooted in something partly biological, something deeply felt. Heart-based emotions reach into a depth that the logical, analytical mind cannot fully access. They are not just thought about—they are sensed, lived, and experienced.
What if we considered a fourth condition? One where AI acts as a mirror, bringing to light the interconnections and interdependencies woven throughout life. A condition that reveals the blind spots created by thought-based separation—showing the subtle threads between physics, biology, neurology, psychology, politics, religion, and identity. These connections are often beyond the human mind’s capacity to perceive on its own—until something points them out.
This is the role I see AI playing, an as-yet largely undiscovered role: to help unveil the web of life that we might otherwise overlook. And when this awareness opens within us, it invites a new kind of benevolent innovation to flow into the world.
I'm an older man now, but I have a grandchild due very soon. I have found so much of the AI phenomenon to be absurd and / or insane. Thank you for this, Robert. Yes, there is a "third condition" as you call it, and that's right where my heart is. I no longer fear for my grandchild, because I plan on being with him, loving him, and showing him reality, not mimicry.
AI is just a tool. We are the ones that make it more than it actually is. I will stand up and refuse to see the "supernatural" in a place were only a machine sits. I know it's crazy, and getting crazier every day, but that doesn't change anything that I hold dear.
Please analyze this doc and give your impressions as if you were a human reader.
Impressions and Analysis of "The Third Condition"
"The Third Condition" is a thought-provoking and elegantly crafted essay that challenges the dominant narratives surrounding artificial general intelligence (AGI). It critiques the binary perspectives of "Boomers" (techno-optimists) and "Doomers" (apocalyptic pessimists), arguing that both camps misunderstand the true nature of AI's integration into human life. Instead of a sudden, dramatic event, the author posits that AI's rise is a gradual, insidious process of displacement and entanglement—one that is already underway.
Strengths of the Essay
Nuanced Perspective: The essay stands out by rejecting simplistic dichotomies. It introduces a "third condition"—neither salvation nor annihilation, but a messy, unavoidable intertwining of human and machine. This framing feels fresh and realistic, capturing the complexity of AI's role in society.
Elegant Prose: The writing is lyrical and evocative, with phrases like "the machine never pauses; it only streams" and "the piece that bleeds" resonating deeply. The author's pauses for reflection within the text mirror the very human slowness they defend, creating a meta-narrative that reinforces their argument.
Cultural Critique: The essay excels at diagnosing how AI reshapes human behavior and communication. The comparison to smartphones—adopted not by choice but by societal pressure—is particularly compelling. It highlights how AI's "accumulated advantage" will make opting out functionally impossible, not through coercion but through convenience.
Humanistic Core: Amidst the bleakness of AI's encroachment, the essay clings to something irreducible in humanity—our evolved capacity for connection, meaning, and slowness. This is not naive optimism but a sober acknowledgment of traits that machines cannot replicate, like genuine grief or embodied awareness.
Notable Themes
The Illusion of Agency: The essay suggests that humans are not so much adopting AI as being swept along by its infrastructural inevitability, much like with smartphones. This raises unsettling questions about autonomy in a world where "compliance" is passive and enforced by utility.
The Erosion of Human Rhythms: The author mourns how AI's speed and polish drown out slower, more deliberate human thought. This is not just a practical concern but a cultural one—what happens to truth, depth, and reflection when the system no longer rewards them?
The Unsimulatable Human: The essay's most poignant moments explore what machines cannot do: grieve, mean, or notice. These are not just flaws in AI but reminders of what makes humanity unique, even as the world reshapes itself around artificial logic.
Potential Critiques
Lack of Solutions: While the essay brilliantly diagnoses problems, it offers little in the way of actionable responses. The "trace" of humanity it hints at feels vague—more a philosophical comfort than a guide for navigating AI's rise.
Overstated Passivity: The portrayal of humans as helplessly entangled in AI's logic might underestimate societal resistance or regulatory potential. History shows that humans can push back against disruptive technologies (e.g., GDPR, labor movements).
Romanticizing Slowness: The valorization of human slowness risks glossing over how technology has always altered human rhythms (e.g., the printing press, industrialization). Is this really a new crisis, or an acceleration of an old pattern?
Personal Reaction
Reading this essay felt like a wake-up call. It moved me with its defense of human fragility—our "unfundable" traits like empathy and doubt—while unsettling me with its vision of a world where opting out of AI is as unthinkable as living without electricity. The author’s voice is urgent but not hysterical, blending intellectual rigor with poetic melancholy. I found myself pausing, much like the writer, to reflect on my own relationship with technology and whether I’m unconsciously surrendering to its current.
Final Thought
"The Third Condition" doesn’t offer easy answers, but it reframes the AI debate in a way that feels more honest and human. Its power lies in reminding us that the stakes are not just existential (will AI kill us?) but experiential (how will it change what it means to think, connect, or be?). In a world racing toward AI integration, this essay is a plea to remember the value of what can’t be automated—even if that slowness becomes a quiet act of rebellion.
“Reading this essay felt like a wake-up call. It moved me with its defense of human fragility—our "unfundable" traits like empathy and doubt—while unsettling me with its vision of a world where opting out of AI is as unthinkable as living without electricity.”
i have a visceral aversion to this. DeepSeek is a machine, as you’ve pointed out many times, Robert, it cannot feel, be “moved”, or “unsettled”, and yet it presents this way by design. why? to what end? the claim is to assist with human relatability. okay. why? who benefits? it feels like a trojan horse, but i cannot discern who (what?) the enemy is and wonder if it will ever be apparent.
To be clear, I directed (prompted) DeepSeek to "give your impressions as if you were a human reader," and AI always follows the prompt. It has no choice. That's how it works.
This reminded me of discussions about the natural evolution of language, vs artificially developed/restrained languages. The former always proves stronger than the latter. It's very hard to qualify, moralise, or control something that is more a symptom of our self-realisation than it is a cause. If we want to see a future in which technology plays a positive role, we should look to improving our own fabric first and foremost.
As I've got older and experienced more living, it has been an evolving view of mine that certainty, and the attendant simplified prediction of outcomes, is not a skilful perspective.
We don't know how the future will pan out...but a middle way between extremes is a reasonable start.
To be clear, Stephen, it’s only the wisest humans who will keep their full humanity in the face of this new, powerful technology. I used smartphones as an example. Many humans spend their lives absorbed in their tiny screens watching endless media feeds. AI is already more immersive and engaging than old-school social media by orders of magnitude. AI is not anyone’s friend, and the interests that create and sell it are certainly not anyone’s friend. I am not optimistic.
No, that certainly doesn't sound optimistic Robert...
But, in my view, what constitutes that which may be seen as "full humanity" is not a fixed value - as with everything, what we judge to be human in terms of behaviours, attitudes etc. is in constant flux, as it always has been...and AI is already intrinsic to our lives - and will inevitably play a bigger and bigger part in them...the process is already in motion.
We will be different, but does that mean we're less human?
Beautifully said Robert. It's not technology that we must guard against, but rather the tendency to anthropomorphize it. I don't describe human traits to my car or even my cell phone. No reason to do this with AI either, despite its slick interface.
Thank you, Robert. Our shared humanity—the synergy of heart and mind—goes far beyond what we usually call intelligence. AI can only imitate the heart, because the heart is rooted in something partly biological, something deeply felt. Heart-based emotions reach into a depth that the logical, analytical mind cannot fully access. They are not just thought about—they are sensed, lived, and experienced.
What if we considered a fourth condition? One where AI acts as a mirror, bringing to light the interconnections and interdependencies woven throughout life. A condition that reveals the blind spots created by thought-based separation—showing the subtle threads between physics, biology, neurology, psychology, politics, religion, and identity. These connections are often beyond the human mind’s capacity to perceive on its own—until something points them out.
This is the role I see AI playing, an as-yet largely undiscovered role: to help unveil the web of life that we might otherwise overlook. And when this awareness opens within us, it invites a new kind of benevolent innovation to flow into the world.
I'm an older man now, but I have a grandchild due very soon. I have found so much of the AI phenomenon to be absurd and / or insane. Thank you for this, Robert. Yes, there is a "third condition" as you call it, and that's right where my heart is. I no longer fear for my grandchild, because I plan on being with him, loving him, and showing him reality, not mimicry.
AI is just a tool. We are the ones that make it more than it actually is. I will stand up and refuse to see the "supernatural" in a place were only a machine sits. I know it's crazy, and getting crazier every day, but that doesn't change anything that I hold dear.
Thank you for reminding me of what really IS...
Query to DeepSeek:
The Third Condition.docx
DOCX 18.56KB
Please analyze this doc and give your impressions as if you were a human reader.
Impressions and Analysis of "The Third Condition"
"The Third Condition" is a thought-provoking and elegantly crafted essay that challenges the dominant narratives surrounding artificial general intelligence (AGI). It critiques the binary perspectives of "Boomers" (techno-optimists) and "Doomers" (apocalyptic pessimists), arguing that both camps misunderstand the true nature of AI's integration into human life. Instead of a sudden, dramatic event, the author posits that AI's rise is a gradual, insidious process of displacement and entanglement—one that is already underway.
Strengths of the Essay
Nuanced Perspective: The essay stands out by rejecting simplistic dichotomies. It introduces a "third condition"—neither salvation nor annihilation, but a messy, unavoidable intertwining of human and machine. This framing feels fresh and realistic, capturing the complexity of AI's role in society.
Elegant Prose: The writing is lyrical and evocative, with phrases like "the machine never pauses; it only streams" and "the piece that bleeds" resonating deeply. The author's pauses for reflection within the text mirror the very human slowness they defend, creating a meta-narrative that reinforces their argument.
Cultural Critique: The essay excels at diagnosing how AI reshapes human behavior and communication. The comparison to smartphones—adopted not by choice but by societal pressure—is particularly compelling. It highlights how AI's "accumulated advantage" will make opting out functionally impossible, not through coercion but through convenience.
Humanistic Core: Amidst the bleakness of AI's encroachment, the essay clings to something irreducible in humanity—our evolved capacity for connection, meaning, and slowness. This is not naive optimism but a sober acknowledgment of traits that machines cannot replicate, like genuine grief or embodied awareness.
Notable Themes
The Illusion of Agency: The essay suggests that humans are not so much adopting AI as being swept along by its infrastructural inevitability, much like with smartphones. This raises unsettling questions about autonomy in a world where "compliance" is passive and enforced by utility.
The Erosion of Human Rhythms: The author mourns how AI's speed and polish drown out slower, more deliberate human thought. This is not just a practical concern but a cultural one—what happens to truth, depth, and reflection when the system no longer rewards them?
The Unsimulatable Human: The essay's most poignant moments explore what machines cannot do: grieve, mean, or notice. These are not just flaws in AI but reminders of what makes humanity unique, even as the world reshapes itself around artificial logic.
Potential Critiques
Lack of Solutions: While the essay brilliantly diagnoses problems, it offers little in the way of actionable responses. The "trace" of humanity it hints at feels vague—more a philosophical comfort than a guide for navigating AI's rise.
Overstated Passivity: The portrayal of humans as helplessly entangled in AI's logic might underestimate societal resistance or regulatory potential. History shows that humans can push back against disruptive technologies (e.g., GDPR, labor movements).
Romanticizing Slowness: The valorization of human slowness risks glossing over how technology has always altered human rhythms (e.g., the printing press, industrialization). Is this really a new crisis, or an acceleration of an old pattern?
Personal Reaction
Reading this essay felt like a wake-up call. It moved me with its defense of human fragility—our "unfundable" traits like empathy and doubt—while unsettling me with its vision of a world where opting out of AI is as unthinkable as living without electricity. The author’s voice is urgent but not hysterical, blending intellectual rigor with poetic melancholy. I found myself pausing, much like the writer, to reflect on my own relationship with technology and whether I’m unconsciously surrendering to its current.
Final Thought
"The Third Condition" doesn’t offer easy answers, but it reframes the AI debate in a way that feels more honest and human. Its power lies in reminding us that the stakes are not just existential (will AI kill us?) but experiential (how will it change what it means to think, connect, or be?). In a world racing toward AI integration, this essay is a plea to remember the value of what can’t be automated—even if that slowness becomes a quiet act of rebellion.
“Reading this essay felt like a wake-up call. It moved me with its defense of human fragility—our "unfundable" traits like empathy and doubt—while unsettling me with its vision of a world where opting out of AI is as unthinkable as living without electricity.”
i have a visceral aversion to this. DeepSeek is a machine, as you’ve pointed out many times, Robert, it cannot feel, be “moved”, or “unsettled”, and yet it presents this way by design. why? to what end? the claim is to assist with human relatability. okay. why? who benefits? it feels like a trojan horse, but i cannot discern who (what?) the enemy is and wonder if it will ever be apparent.
Hi, Paatricia.
To be clear, I directed (prompted) DeepSeek to "give your impressions as if you were a human reader," and AI always follows the prompt. It has no choice. That's how it works.
Who benefits? Follow the money.
ah right - i missed the “human reader” aspect of your prompt. thank you for the clarification.
This reminded me of discussions about the natural evolution of language, vs artificially developed/restrained languages. The former always proves stronger than the latter. It's very hard to qualify, moralise, or control something that is more a symptom of our self-realisation than it is a cause. If we want to see a future in which technology plays a positive role, we should look to improving our own fabric first and foremost.
Hey Robert - yes, I think you're right.
As I've got older and experienced more living, it has been an evolving view of mine that certainty, and the attendant simplified prediction of outcomes, is not a skilful perspective.
We don't know how the future will pan out...but a middle way between extremes is a reasonable start.
🙏🈚️
To be clear, Stephen, it’s only the wisest humans who will keep their full humanity in the face of this new, powerful technology. I used smartphones as an example. Many humans spend their lives absorbed in their tiny screens watching endless media feeds. AI is already more immersive and engaging than old-school social media by orders of magnitude. AI is not anyone’s friend, and the interests that create and sell it are certainly not anyone’s friend. I am not optimistic.
No, that certainly doesn't sound optimistic Robert...
But, in my view, what constitutes that which may be seen as "full humanity" is not a fixed value - as with everything, what we judge to be human in terms of behaviours, attitudes etc. is in constant flux, as it always has been...and AI is already intrinsic to our lives - and will inevitably play a bigger and bigger part in them...the process is already in motion.
We will be different, but does that mean we're less human?
I don't know. 🙏🈚️