“I think the biggest challenges in the next 5 to 7 years in the context of AI and data are not going to be challenges of STEM, of technology…There’ll be challenges of ethics. What is the right thing to do? Should you use this data or not use this data? At what stage are we blurring the boundary between the computer and the human being? At what stage are you being too spooky and too intrusive into the lives of people? These are issues of philosophy. These are not issues of science.”
— Piyush Gupta, IBF Executive Lounge Interview, January 2025
I have always liked philosophy. Not in a scholarly way. But it has always had a special place in my heart. It helped me think, understand, and make sense of things.
When I was writing my Contemplationes series—some of you may have read them, and thank you if you did—I found myself returning to the philosophers ever so often. Some I had read before; others were new. Yet even the familiar ones offered different insights and wisdom this time. Perhaps because I was at a different stage in life, seeing them through a new set of lenses. So I continued reading and reflecting, even after the books were completed. At the same time, I was also earnestly trying to learn and engage with AI tools, while observing their rapid evolution and growing influence.
Piyush’s words would come to mind. A CEO I have long admired. A deeply perceptive, thoughtful, and brilliant individual—and, if I may venture, in some ways a modern-day philosopher. Something in his words lingered: “These are issues of philosophy…not issues of science,” he had said. It made me wonder; I wanted to try to make more sense of that.
Hence, the beginning of this blog series. Perhaps the questions explored, and the approach taken, may not be quite what Piyush had meant when he spoke—I do not know. Nevertheless, I would like to acknowledge that his words gave me the impetus to embark on this.
A Casual Philosophy Series
This is a series of musings, each one exploring a question—something real, something relevant, something we are already facing in the age of AI. Not abstract dilemmas, but the kind of conundrums and curiosities that arise as AI becomes increasingly prevalent in our lives.
To each contemporary question, we turn to a particular era or school of thought whose concerns resonate with the issue at hand—three voices from within each philosophical lineage. From the foundational meditations of Thales and Parmenides, to the structured reasoning of Socrates and Aristotle, and onward to the existential provocations of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, the posts are arranged loosely along a chronological arc.
Why casual? While researched and written with care, these are still the explorations of an amateur in the discipline of philosophy. By no means a deep study, nor an academic thesis. And they do not purport to provide answers—only a way of thinking, a framework. A lens through which we examine the systems we build, the assumptions we encode, and the human tensions we carry forward. Guided by wisdom that has endured across the ages.
A Note on Style and Use of AI
Whether it is my books or these posts, I wish to be fair and sincere with anyone deciding whether to spend time with them. So, I will not deny it: yes, I have used AI tools to assist me. Something I had also shared candidly in my books.
Certainly for the pictures, as I have no gift for drawing. To some extent, also for the writing—the kind of help one might ask of a capable assistant: research, suggestions on phrasing, and clarity. Traces of AI-edited sentence structures will therefore be present. Perhaps you may notice some formal constructions, parallel phrasing, deliberate punctuation, or the occasional stilted vocabulary, and think, “That must be AI.”
Yes—and no. Not entirely. That is also me.
Much of this comes from what I grew up with: the lyrical phrasing of Shakespeare, the solemn cadences of Dante, the precise simplicity of Robert Frost, the straightforward aphorisms of Ella Wheeler Wilcox; and then there were also the varied voices of the philosophers—whether in their ruminative musings, their articulate explorations, or their urgent admonitions. The beauty and ingenuity of their expression seemed to flow off the page and into me. I had tried to emulate, and some of it became internalized over time.
Other influences I gathered along the way came from friends and colleagues whose eloquence and precision left their mark. For example, I remember meeting a friend whom I had not seen for years. He had always been stern, perhaps even a tad intimidating. Yet something had changed this time. Despite challenging circumstances, he seemed…gentler, almost. He said he had become more “sanguine.” I did not know the word then, but I understood it intuitively, for there was no better one to describe what I saw in him at that moment. Since then, the word has become part of my lexicon—though AI recently told me it is “archaic.”
When offering refinements, AI might suggest altering my vocabulary or phrasing: to modernize word choices it deems antiquated, to flatten cadences it finds indulgent, and to trim ornament it considers excessive. Sometimes I concur; other times, I choose not to. Thus, if the final writing leans toward a certain style, it is not merely the hallmark of AI—it is also because it does sound like me.
Toward What Comes Next
To those reading this blog, I am grateful for your presence. In the next post, we will explore the first conundrum of this series: what boundaries are needed when synthetic experiences shape real decisions? I hope you will join me in that, and in the ones to come.
To those who have supported my books, once again, thank you. I hope they resonated. To those who have yet to see them and might like to take a look, you can find them here.
From the AI Conundrums and Curiosities: A Casual Philosophy Series by Jacquie T.
Comments ()