Blogcritical thinking

7min

Reza Zad

𝕏 in

Listen: Choosing Realism in the Age of AI

0:000:00

Ready

Choosing Realism in the Age of AI

Introduction: A Question That Follows Us Everywhere

This question keeps showing up in many places. I see it between the lines of news about new AI tools. I notice it in public talks from tech leaders. I feel it in the silence when people hear about another breakthrough and do not know whether to feel excited or afraid. The same quiet question sits underneath all of this

“Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future with AI?”

It sounds like a simple question, yet it carries a quiet weight. The world is changing faster than most of us can process. Our habits, our attention, our sense of truth, and even our imagination are shifting under the influence of systems we barely understand. It is natural that we want to know whether the story ahead is a bright one or a bleak one.

But as I reflected on this question through the lens of critical thinking, something became clear to me. Framing the future as a choice between optimism and pessimism limits our ability to think. It leaves us with two extremes and no space in between. And the truth we all feel, even if we rarely say it out loud, is that the world has never been shaped by people who stay frozen on either side.

The future is not a mood. It is a responsibility.

So I began to explore what a more grounded view could look like. Not hopeful. Not fearful. Simply aware.

The Trap of Optimism and Pessimism

Most people answer the question about the future in one of two ways.

The pessimist tends to say everything will collapse. They imagine AI taking over jobs, systems, decisions, and eventually the meaning of human life. When someone adopts this mindset fully, something subtle happens. They stop trying. They step back from shaping the future because they already believe the ending has been written. Critical thinking becomes weak in this state because fear fills the space where analysis should live.

The optimist, on the other hand, imagines that everything will work out. They see AI curing disease, solving climate issues, and boosting human capabilities to new heights. Yet this mindset carries a different risk. It can make people too relaxed. If you believe good outcomes will appear no matter what, you may not feel the need to question the systems being built or the incentives behind them. This also weakens critical thinking because comfort replaces caution.

Both extremes lead to a loss of agency. Both prevent us from asking deeper questions. And both damage trust on a global level.

Consider the competition between large nations, especially in AI research. When one country thinks the other will continue racing forward, it feels pressured to accelerate in response. The same pattern appears in companies. No one wants to be the first to slow down. This is a classic prisoners’ dilemma. Every player feels forced to move faster, even when speed creates risk. This tension grows when optimism is naive or pessimism is paralyzing.

And then a more unsettling question arises in the back of our minds.

If humans struggle to trust one another, how will we ever trust artificial general intelligence? Trust is not something we magically create one day when AGI arrives. It is trained into these systems through our decisions, our incentives, and our behavior right now. If we approach the future from a place of fear or blind hope, the systems we build will mirror that confusion.

Geoffrey Hinton once said, “I think it is quite conceivable that humanity is just a passing phase in the evolution of intelligence.” His words are not a prediction, but a reminder: the path ahead requires deep awareness. Without it, we might create something powerful without understanding how to guide it.

This is where realism begins to matter.

Why Realism Is a More Honest Position

Realism is not a neutral point between optimism and pessimism. It is a discipline. It asks us to see clearly. It asks us to strip away emotional comfort and emotional fear so we can look at what we actually know, what we do not know, and what remains uncertain.

Critical thinking lives in this space. Not in the extremes.

A realistic mindset helps us notice patterns instead of predictions. It keeps us curious about incentives, motives, and risks. It lets us remain grounded when AI generates excitement or panic in the media. Realism does not ask us to believe everything will be fine. It asks us to stay awake enough to shape what “fine” can mean.

From this position, something important comes into focus: the future of AI is not fixed. It is a field of many possible paths. Some lead to progress. Some lead to harm. Some lead to outcomes no one can forecast yet. We cannot choose a path by wishing. We choose it by thinking clearly and acting intentionally.

Realism creates space for responsibility.

The Work Ahead: Rules That Protect the Future

If we want to build a future we can trust, we need rules and structures that bring clarity to the development of AI. Here are areas where this matters deeply.

1. Misinformation

AI can generate content faster than any human can verify. This creates a world where truth becomes fragile. Without rules for transparency, source tracking, and content labeling, false narratives could spread easily. Realism means acknowledging this risk and building systems that protect shared reality. When trust collapses, coordination collapses with it.

2. Bias and Fairness

AI models learn from human data, and human data carries human biases. These biases can shape decisions about jobs, safety, finance, and justice. Realism requires us to face this directly and design checks that continuously monitor and correct for unfair patterns. Bias is not a technical mistake. It is a social signal that something deeper needs attention.

3. Explainability

As models grow more complex, their decisions become harder to understand. People need to know why an action was taken, not just what action was taken. Realism means understanding that systems we cannot interpret eventually become systems we cannot trust. Explainability is not only a technical goal. It is a psychological bridge that keeps humans and AI aligned in shared understanding.

4. Global Trust and Alignment

If nations do not trust one another’s intentions, cooperation will shrink, and the race dynamic will grow stronger. Realism asks us to recognize that global coordination is difficult, yet necessary. Without shared safety standards and shared commitments, we will continue building systems that evolve faster than our agreements.

These areas form a foundation that does not depend on hope or fear. They depend on awareness.

Conclusion: A Future Built by Awake Minds

So should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the age of AI?

I no longer think that is the right question. The world does not need blind hope or quiet despair. It needs steadiness. It needs people willing to think with clarity and act with responsibility. It needs realism, not in the sense of being cold or detached, but in the sense of being awake.

When we are realistic, we stay engaged. We participate in shaping the rules. We question the incentives behind every breakthrough. We understand that the future is not a movie we watch; it is something we co-create through choices, conversations, and awareness.

A realistic mindset does not guarantee a perfect outcome. It simply makes a better outcome possible.

And maybe that is the most human thing we can do right now: stay conscious, stay thoughtful, and stay present in this moment of great change. The future does not ask us to predict it. It asks us to take part in building it.

Picks for you

The AI Race Is Not a Technology Race

The AI race is often framed as a competition of intelligence, models, and algorithms, but this essay argues that it is fundamentally an energy allocation problem hidden beneath a narrative of innovation. AI scales not like software but like heavy industry, consuming vast amounts of electricity and triggering political, social, and infrastructural constraints that code alone cannot solve. The real bottlenecks are not technical breakthroughs, but governance issues such as permitting, grid capacity, public consent, and price stability. In this context, energy geopolitics matter less for directly powering servers and more for creating political slack, cushioning public backlash, and making controversial reallocations of power socially tolerable. The true strategic challenge is not building smarter machines, but justifying why machines should receive scarce energy before people, and doing so without eroding trust or legitimacy. If the AI era succeeds, it will be because societies align energy, politics, and meaning through a story people can live inside; if it fails, it will be because that bargain is rejected.

2026 and the Return of the Whole Mind

As we move toward 2026, many of us are sensing a quiet imbalance. We think faster, consume more information, and rely heavily on analysis, yet feel less grounded, less certain, and more disconnected from ourselves. This essay argues that the problem is not thinking itself, but thinking in isolation. For decades, logic, efficiency, and control have been rewarded while intuition, emotion, imagination, and embodied knowing were sidelined. AI now exposes this imbalance by outperforming humans in pure analysis, making it clear that competing on cognition alone is a dead end. What remains distinctly human is the ability to sense context, notice subtle signals, integrate feeling with reason, and act with timing rather than urgency. Burnout, anxiety, and chronic overthinking are framed not as weaknesses but as signals of misalignment, where inner intelligence has been ignored too long. The future will favor integrated minds, people who can think clearly while also listening inwardly, adapting without panic, and making meaning from lived experience. The return of the whole mind is not nostalgia or softness, but a necessary evolution: a widening of intelligence that allows humans to partner with technology without losing themselves.

Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is

Why Immigration Feels More Dangerous Than It Statistically Is explains how fear can grow even when reality stays relatively stable. Most of what we believe about crime and immigration does not come from direct experience but from repeated images, clips, and headlines designed to capture attention. The human brain uses a shortcut called the availability heuristic, it assumes that what comes to mind easily must be common. In a media environment where rare but extreme incidents are replayed endlessly, exposure replaces frequency, and repetition starts to feel like evidence. Immigration becomes a perfect container for this fear because it is complex, emotional, and easy to turn into a story with faces and villains. Long-term data often shows a calmer picture than our instincts suggest, but fear moves faster than context. The essay argues that critical thinking is not about dismissing fear, but about pausing inside it and asking whether our feelings reflect reality or visibility. When we hold that pause, understanding has room to return, and attention becomes a responsibility rather than a reflex.

Emotion as Navigation

Emotion as Navigation argues that emotions are not irrational reactions or inner verdicts, but feedback signals that indicate how our current reality relates to an underlying goal. We do not perceive the world neutrally and then feel about it; perception, emotion, and action form a single system oriented toward movement and adjustment. Positive emotions signal alignment, while negative emotions signal friction, misalignment, or outdated assumptions. Problems arise when we treat emotions as authority instead of information, or when the goals guiding our lives remain unexamined. Critical thinking does not suppress emotion, it interprets it by asking what aim the feeling is responding to and whether that aim still deserves commitment. When emotions are read as data rather than commands, they become a navigational compass rather than a source of confusion. A meaningful life, then, is not emotionally smooth but directionally coherent, guided by alignment rather than by the pursuit or avoidance of feelings themselves.

Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI

Thinking Under Pressure in the Age of AI argues that the real risk of AI is not incorrect answers, but how its speed, clarity, and confidence interact with human cognitive biases. Our minds rely on shortcuts designed for efficiency, and AI amplifies these shortcuts by making information feel complete, authoritative, and easy to trust. Biases shape what we notice, how we judge probability, how we commit to decisions, and how emotion quietly leads reasoning, often without awareness. Critical thinking today does not mean rejecting AI or eliminating bias, but slowing down enough to recognize when judgment is being bent by familiarity, confidence, framing, or emotional ease. As AI accelerates information flow, human responsibility shifts toward interpretation, verification, and self-awareness. When we notice our own thinking habits, AI remains a tool; when we do not, it quietly becomes the driver.

Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention

Good, Bad, and the Direction of Attention argues that we do not experience the world as inherently good or bad, but as helpful or obstructive relative to an often unexamined aim. Our attention, emotions, and moral judgments are shaped by the direction we are moving in, not by neutral facts. What accelerates our path feels “good,” what slows it feels “bad,” even though neither quality exists on its own. This is why people can react morally in opposite ways to the same event, they are oriented toward different goals. The danger arises when the aim itself remains invisible, because alignment then masquerades as virtue and resistance as evil. Critical thinking begins by asking what aim is generating a reaction, not by defending the reaction itself. When we examine direction before judgment, we regain freedom to question whether speed equals progress, whether friction equals harm, and whether what feels urgent actually leads somewhere meaningful.

What If We Are Living in a Simulation?

What If We Are Living in a Simulation? treats simulation theory not as sci-fi speculation but as a lens for understanding why the world looks the way it does. Simulations exist to explore unknown outcomes, not to preserve harmony, and when viewed this way, suffering, chaos, and instability stop looking like errors and start looking like data. Human history, with its late arrival, layered complexity, religions, governments, markets, and now AI, resembles a staged experiment where new parameters are introduced to increase unpredictability. Meaning, in this frame, does not disappear, it intensifies. If outcomes are uncertain, then choices matter more, not less. Whether the universe is simulated or not, we already live inside conditions where agency, values, and response shape trajectories. We are not spectators waiting for answers, but variables whose actions feed the system itself. The unfinished nature of reality is not proof of meaninglessness, but evidence that participation is the point, and that how we act under uncertainty is the real test.

Comments

Loading…