Would Socrates Use AI?
Throughout time, the arrival of an invention or new technology intended to make our lives better was predicted to do the exact opposite. Some of the more notable examples in history:
-Math teachers saying students would lose basic arithmetic skills thanks to the pocket calculator.
-Opponents of TV forecasting a world of shallow, emotion-driven entertainment demanding absolutely nothing from the viewer’s brain.
-Radio’s critics labeling it a dangerous distraction that would soon render the population completely brain dead.
-Criticism of the telephone ending face-to-face conversation.
-Photography taking heat when it was new because ’it required no imagination, soul, or genuine talent’ and would ruin the public’s taste for true fine art.
It’s easy to look back in time and wonder why the vision for what those and other technology breakthroughs could bring to humanity was so cloudy. The detractors who were there, in the moment, were considered to be intelligent, worldly people arguing in public to defend a human quality they hold dear from the technology that might take it from them forever. Only time could diminish their passion and purpose.
This is the example that stands out; Socrates disagreed that writing was a good thing. In fact, he never wrote anything himself. Yes, that Socrates. Writing? Um, … what?! He said writing was a crutch, weakened memory, and created ‘the illusion of wisdom.’
Socrates claimed that ‘a book cannot defend itself against misinterpretation, adapt to the reader's needs, or engage in the back-and-forth questioning that is necessary for genuine philosophical growth.’ Heady, perplexing stuff. We only know this about Socrates because Plato wrote it all down.
But what if Socrates had a book that could do all of those things? Aside from overcoming the effects of time travel and his most likely questionable spelling skills, it seems likely to me that Socrates would be a fan of AI. The guy spent his life warning that books were dead ends: they couldn't explain themselves, adjust to the reader, or argue back. Two thousand years later, the fix he was waiting for wasn't a better book; it was a conversation with AI. (If any reader builds ChatSocrates, I get a cut.)
When the stories about our lives in the early era of widespread AI use are told in a hundred years (we’ll still be here), I hope they make fun of us talking about how robots could take over. I hope they applaud our commitment to using AI for fast-tracking advances in medicine and science.
Those stories are already baked in. The most important story the future can tell about us is still in our hands. The one where we turn the corner story on understanding that AI doesn’t give us the answer. It helps us with the process we use to get the answer.
Understanding that, yes, AI can write copy, generate images, and build videos in seconds. But it can't experience the satisfaction of finding the perfect words that make us feel the rush of a live break that lands perfectly.
The story of how we applied AI in ways that re-energized appreciation of the exclusively human instincts, taste, and muscle memory that comes from years behind a microphone. For radio people, those things aren't just the ingredients for creating and entertaining. They're the reason we’re in this in the first place.
As AI shows up more as part of our everyday workflow, it's going to be tempting to lean on it more. It’s coming. Today’s best air talent, producers, and programmers create memorable moments because they care enough to keep shaping an idea until it feels right. The future of that craft is knowing when AI is indispensable and when it’s not needed at all.
In the end, the connection, human attention, and meaning that moves your audience as much as it does you doesn’t show up because AI was or wasn’t involved. It's found in what you choose to create.
