Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Terry underwood's avatar

For me, tool-being vs tool-object depends upon the expertise of the tool user. In the hands of a master, tool-being means automaticity, fluency, metacognition, self-regulation, critical thinking. In the hands of a novice, tool-object is thinghood, some thing or other, wtf do I do with this. I think bottom line it takes a lot of expert guidance to develop safe, effective, and sane uses of power tools like being comfortable with AI. Growth along the tool object to tool being axis is what teachers need to monitor.

I realize you’re reading against the grain but I quibble with your interpretation of Heidegger’s use of the word “primordial.” You interpret this as if a primordial relationship with a tool is bad or risky as an agency trap with the bot winning, as if the bot can beat us at our own game if we let it treat us like a chimp, an enlightened animal, but nonetheless a chimp willing to cede agency.

I don’t see it that way. A primordial relationship is good, positive, being, not cold, useless object—almost biological like AI vision or hearing repairs—good things. I think Heidegger tells us to reach the point where the thinking required to shift a tool from readiness to use (being) is intuitive, in touch with the amygdala. Was that word even a thing?

I’m not sure about the utility of the lists. Can you identify superordinate categories and use bullet points? I’m thinking about slides and posters. Also translate to user friendly terms. Curious to hear other comments.

Excellent work!!! Keep it coming

Expand full comment
Michael Woudenberg's avatar

I like this framing a lot. I've got an essay coming out soon that is titled Augmenting Intelligence, which covers a lot of the same points (probably because I reference at least three of your essays.) I just wish more people would slow down and think for a hot second.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts