> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.hypermodern.online/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # In Defense of Organic Perspective: Responding to AI's Pervasiveness with Original Human Thought - URL: https://www.hypermodern.online/in-defense-of-organic-perspective-responding-to-ais-pervasiveness-with-original-human-thought-at-scale/ - Published: 2026-08-31T03:32:53.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-31T03:33:20.000Z - Author: David Cash > “We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter.” **– Sam Altman, OpenAI** When we consider the future of technology, we can only see into the immediate future. However, elite technocrats and VC leaders in Silicon Valley and globally have begun to share a collective vision of what the slightly less immediate future might look like, at least regarding humanity's core relationship with artificial intelligence. In the future, to quote Altman, "intelligence is a utility" and, thus, it is in the best interest of the powers that be to thereby make 'intelligence' a commodity that can be scarcified. What does this mean for us? Well, in a world where intelligence becomes a commodity at the level of electricity, we would, theoretically, rely nearly entirely on artificial intelligence, instead of "organic intelligence" or "human intelligence." Considering the ways that younger generations are already relying on *ChatGPT* and *Claude* to do homework, write essays, perform basic thinking, and even make simple decisions such as what to wear and what to eat for dinner, this supposed ***future*** seems far less distant. What happens when we all rely on the same knowledge base to make all of our decisions? According to the [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/?ref=hypermodern.online), just 3 years after AI's mass popularization with the launch of *ChatGPT*, roughly 1/3 of all internet content published since then shows signs of being fully or partially written using AI. That fact carries a number of serious implications. Firstly, considering hyper-flux and the exponential change present in the hypermodern era, how long do we have until 80-90% of the internet, our principal source of information, is partially or fully written or published using AI? This brings us to the discussion of "Dead internet theory." According to a study from Harvard's Astrophysics Data System operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory under NASA Cooperative Agreement: > The Dead Internet Theory (DIT) suggests that much of today's internet, particularly social media, is dominated by non-human activity, AI-generated content, and corporate agendas, leading to a decline in authentic human interaction. So how long do we have until we reach this point of domination? Due to exponential change being in hyper-flux, it's very hard to say. However, we can clearly predict that in a landscape where all or most information on the internet can be attributed to AI, AI will likely drift further and further from the realm of human logic and, perhaps, logic in its entirety. How long do we have until AI gives itself AI psychosis? Resulting in pure regurgitation of pseudointellectual psychobabble that has no real bearing on reality or the physical or conceptual world around us? > In the era of hypermodernity, **we owe it to humanity** to go out of our way to work against dead internet theory by creating and publishing original perspectives, thoughts, creative works, etc. The alternative? The decay of humanity's intellectual dominance. If Altman's predicted future of intelligence being sold as a utility at scale, he implies an inherent lack of intelligence available to most humans. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b3/8a/b38afdc5-eaeb-495a-93c0-ba7c17f9c3aa/content/images/2026/08/ChatGPT-Image-Aug-30--2026--11_25_58-PM.png) Human vs AI: the battle for intellectual dominance This series of essays criticizes the modern academic system for its antiquated structures, lack of flexibility, and the fact that modern academia is still rooted in puritanical, Jesuit-proliferated early Christianity. But I digress (more on that in another essay). In a world where we can't rely on traditional academia or the new-age mass-available intelligence being catered to us on a day-to-day basis, how do we define truth or and how can we trust any information presented to us? The easy answer? We can't. Today, skeptical empiricism and critical thinking skills are two of the most important qualifiers of organic or human intelligence. We must be able to take all information presented to us with a grain of salt and be willing to disagree with or challenge any and all information, rather than simply trusting statements as "fact" regardless of where they come from. If in the immediate future most, if not all, information presented to us stems from AI or religious ideologies from hundreds of years ago, it is in our best interest to go out of our way to come up with our own opinions and engage in critique and debate of each other's unique perspectives and ideas, similar to various schools of philisophical thought and academia present throughout modern history. > That is the principal reason that absolutely ***zero*** words within this series of essays have been written by AI. This series of essays is my initial yet principal attempt to insert my unique thoughts and perspectives into the zeitgeist. And I encourage all of you reading these words to go out of your way to do the same! AI and modern academia alike have, for many of us, reduced our creative and intellectual confidence down to a level where we feel the need to fact-check or justify any opinion or perspective we have with the assistance of AI (as of 2026). This is a very slippery slope. If we lose our critical thinking skills, we will absolutely need to leverage Altman's "intelligence-as-a-service" version of AI, which is becoming more and more realistic as we continue to rely on AI as our principal means of thinking and performing day-to-day tasks. Does that mean I encourage those of you reading not to use AI? That is far from my point. What I am promoting is skeptical empiricism. According to [the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/?ref=hypermodern.online) (SEP), ancient examples of skepticism within the realm of pre-academia date as far back as Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–c. 270 BCE), who initiated a way of life focused on continuous investigation (*skepsis*) rather than absolute assertions. To cite the SEP: > Ancient skepticism is, for the most part, a phenomenon of Post-Classical, Hellenistic philosophy. The Academic and Pyrrhonian skeptical movements begin roughly in the third century BCE, and end with Sextus Empiricus in the second century CE. Hellenistic philosophy is a large-scale conversation, not unlike philosophy today. The skeptics (among them Pyrrho, Timon, Arcesilaus, Carneades, Aenesidemus, and Sextus Empiricus) do engage with Pre-Socratic philosophy, Socrates, Protagorean relativism, Plato, and perhaps Aristotle. But their principal contemporary interlocutors are Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics, and Megarian logicians. I encourage us to take a big step back from modern academia and AI brainrot and consider the perspectives of these ancient thinkers, who were far removed from the mass availability of data and from outside perspectives. These ancient thinkers had no other option but to observe the world around them, hypothesize rationalizations and, without another option, debate and compare perspectives amongst each other. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/b3/8a/b38afdc5-eaeb-495a-93c0-ba7c17f9c3aa/content/images/2026/08/ChatGPT-Image-Aug-30--2026--11_32_22-PM.png) While humanity has come a long way over the course of the past 2-3000 years, this is the exact kind of thinking and discourse which I encourage us all to, at least somewhat, revert back to in direct opposition to dead internet theory and the proposed commodification of intelligence as something humans can purchase vs possess, learn, or develop. In the era of hypermodernity, this battle over "intelligence" is central to the perpetuation of humanity's dominance on our planet. If we allow for AI to take charge in this respect, we are forfeiting the zeitgeist of humanity into the unknown, which sounds pretty dystopian to me. So, let's perpetuate a future where humanity can persist alongside AI, where we use artificial intelligence for what it is: a technology that can make our lives more efficient, automated, and streamlined. We can leverage technologies as tools without them controlling our lives. For everyone reading this, if you'll humour me, take a second and write down every technology you use on a daily basis. Then consider, on a scale from one to ten, to what extent each of those technologies have some level of control over our lives. Be honest with yourself! Now let's all take small, incremental steps to make ourselves less reliant on technology, focus on our intellectual perspectives, and think critically. From allowing doomscrolling on Instagram to eat up hours of our days to mandating a break from screen time before bed, there are tangible ways that we can slowly move towards a more positive relationship with technology. And considering how much is going to continue to change in terms of technology's constant exponential evolution in hyperflux, this is something we need to do now. This can seem scary, but we can view this as an opportunity. Let's create the future we want to see. Let's think, debate, and create. Humanity relies on humans to persist. We can, and we will. Until tomorrow- – David Cash | August 30th, 2026 > "I am predicting complete global collapse. Not just economic, but also cultural, social, political, \[and\] it's gonna happen a lot faster than people expect. I predict the next 50 years will be complete chaos. There's nothing you can do about it. It's only a question of how fast this happens, and how you take advantage of this collapse. There's another force out there that's very powerful, and they want to achieve an AI network state." > **– Professor Jiang Xueqin, teacher and researcher with the Global Education Innovation Initiative at the Harvard Graduate School of Education** 💡 Primary example of how we should be using AI: As I mentioned, 100% of the words in this and all of the essays in this collection are written by me or sourced from what I consider primary source documents. However, the quote above was transcribed from a video of Prof. Jiang on a podcast using **Claude, not because I couldn't manually transcribe it, but because it's more efficient to use* AI. That is a micro-example of how I see AI being useful.