We need to think again about what the 'A' in AI signifies

Looking at the technology through a different cultural lens casts its threat and promise in a new light.

- Gillian Tett

In December, artificial intelligence bots have slid into Santa's grotto. For one thing, AI-enabled gifts are proliferating—as I know myself, having just been given an impressive AI-dictation device.

Meanwhile, retailers such as Walmart are offering AI tools to provide frazzled shoppers with holiday help. Consider these, if you like, as the digital equivalent of a personal elf, who provides shopping and gifting shortcuts. And they seem to work quite well, judging from recent reviews.

But here is the paradox: Even as AI spreads into our lives—and Christmas stockings—hostility towards it remains sky-high. Earlier in December, for instance, a British government survey found that four out of 10 people expect AI to deliver benefits. However, three out of 10 anticipate significant harm, due to "data security" breaches, "the spread of misinformation" and "job displacement".

That is no surprise, perhaps. The risks are real and well advertised. However, as we move into 2025, it is worth pondering three oft-ignored points about the current anthropology of AI that might help to frame this paradox in a more constructive way.

First, we need to rethink which "A" we are using in "AI" today. Yes, machine learning systems are "artificial." However, bots are not always—or not usually—replacing our human brains, as an alternative to flesh-and-blood cognition. Instead, they usually enable us to operate faster and move more effectively through tasks. Shopping is just one case in point.