Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Fears of artificial intelligence (AI) have haunted humanity since the very beginning of the computer age. Hitherto these fears focused on machines using physical means to kill, enslave or replace people. But over the past couple of years new AI tools have emerged that threaten the survival of human civilisation from an unexpected direction. AI has gained some remarkable abilities to manipulate and generate language, whether with words, sounds or images. Al has thereby hacked the operating system of our civilisation.

Language is the stuff almost all human culture is made of. Human rights, for example, aren't inscribed in our DNA. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by telling stories and writing laws. Gods aren't physical realities. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by inventing myths and writing scriptures. What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures? When people think about Chatgpt and other new AI tools, they are often drawn to examples like school children using AI to write their essays. What will happen to the school system when kids do that? But this kind of question misses the big picture. Forget about school essays. Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of AI tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake-news stories and scriptures for new cults.

Through its mastery of language, AI could even form intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews. Although there is no indication that Al has any consciousness or feelings of its own, to foster fake intimacy with humans it is enough if the AI can make them feel emotionally attached to it.

What will happen to the course of history when AI takes over culture, and begins producing stories, melodies, laws and religions? Previous tools like the printing press and radio helped spread the cultural ideas of humans, but they never created new cultural ideas of their own. AI is fundamentally different. AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture. Of course, the new power of AI could be used for good purposes as well. I won't dwell on this, because the people who develop AI talk about it enough.

We can still regulate the new AI tools, but we must act quickly. Whereas nukes cannot invent more powerful nukes, Al can make exponentially more powerful AI. Unregulated AI deployments would create social chaos, which would benefit autocrats and ruin democracies. Democracy is a conversation, and conversations rely on language. When AI hacks language, it could destroy our ability to have meaningful conversations, thereby destroying democracy. And the first regulation I would suggest is to make it mandatory for AI to disclose that it is an AI. If I am having a conversation with someone, and I cannot tell whether it is a human or an AIβ€”that's the end of democracy. This text has been generated by a human. Or has it?

The tone of the passage could best be described as

Solution

βœ… Correct Option: 4

The author presents serious concerns about AI but does so through logical reasoning and calls for action. Key phrases show this tone -> "We can still regulate the new AI tools, but we must act quickly" and warnings about "social chaos" and threats to democracy.

From passage: "We can still regulate the new AI tools, but we must act quickly. Unregulated AI deployments would create social chaos, which would benefit autocrats and ruin democracies."

The thought process -> Author identifies real dangers -> explains the reasoning behind concerns -> calls for specific action (regulation). This shows measured warning rather than panic or mere curiosity.


Students often get confused between alarmist vs cautionary tones. Here's how to tell them apart:

🟠 Option 1 -> partial-truth -> Yes, there are questions (like the ending), but the main focus is warning about dangers, not being curious or puzzled about AI

🟠 Option 2 -> degree-error -> Author shows concern but uses reasoned arguments and solutions, not panic-inducing language that would make this "alarmist"

🟠 Option 3 -> scope-error -> While author discusses future impacts, the main goal isn't just predicting but warning people to take action now

🟒 Option 4 is correct -> cautionary captures both the serious warnings AND the call for reasonable action/regulation

Key difference: Cautionary = serious warning + reasonable solutions. Alarmist = fear without measured response.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question