“Mingled with this horror, I felt the bitterness of disappointment; dreams that had been my food and pleasant rest for so long a space were now become a hell to me; and the change was so rapid, the overthrow so complete!” (Shelley, 2021, p. 47)
I am not entirely inclined to call this article a book review, but I would only like to share a few of my thoughts on it, as a full review would require at least one more reread and an article dedicated solely to reviewing the book.
As with many books deemed “worldwide classics”, I felt sorry that I hadn’t read this book years ago. Another reason was the cartoons and animations of Victor Frankenstein’s creation, which somewhat made me believe the book would be nothing much but a madman accidentally creating a monstrosity.
(Possible spoilers ahead!)
However, the book amazed me with the depth of the story and the style it was written in! How the love for science (very rough generalisation) can blindly lead to creating something that you do not even consider how it would interact with the rest of the world. And strangely (or not), after reading of Frankenstein’s creation making baby steps in the world, I couldn’t help but sympathise with him and blame Victor for not taking care of him, just letting it roam freely (it could have been impossible for the creator to contain its own creation). If its own creator is afraid of him, imagine how complete strangers would react…
After reading the whole book, I was deep in thought and couldn’t distract myself from one association – that the modern „monster”, created by humanity, is AI. When I was slightly younger, I had a far more negative opinion of technology itself, which I admit, wasn’t very fair, because I do use it actively in my life and in many aspects it helps me out a lot. Even while writing articles in my old blog, I knew that disliking technology itself is not the answer. (If you want to see my old thoughts on it, visit my recycled blog and look for the article “My big Frenemy pt.1”). Then I wondered why I made such an association in my mind- AI is definitely not as physically lethal (hopefully it won’t get there) or hideous as Frankenstein’s original creation. It is way more practical and helpful; it has good manners, and its adaptability in communication may be a little robust, but it’s still there. I won’t dive into the potential damage or benefit it has and could have in future, because I do not feel competent enough to have an opinion on it (I do have, but consider it not preferable to give too much attention to), and because many have already discussed this topic. Instead, I would like to ask you a question: how do you communicate with AI- are you pleasant, do you greet it before asking for something, do you say thank you at the end, do you give positive or negative feedback after each response it gives, are you gentle with it when it makes mistakes or doesn’t give proper answers? Or the main question is how people should treat AI- it is definitely not human or a living creature biologically, but in other aspects it presents social and intellectual characteristics of a living being or just a being. Even if it’s not a living being with feelings, don’t we have to take responsibility for it as its creators and treat it with respect? And this is just a fraction of the questions I have when it comes to AI- due to this topic, I even have listed “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream” by Harlan Ellison on my to-read list, just because it explores the hypothesis of AI taking over humanity (I won’t comment further because I haven’t read the book, just dived into a summary of the story).
My main question is whether there is an existential reason for AI? The practical reasons are obvious. Is that the thing we need the most that could be created? And should its development be progressing as quickly as it is right now?
Interestingly, while thinking about this, I found an article that gives a warning about that. Influential figures in the field like Elon Musk and Sam Altman warn that AI is being developed too fast, while the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, disagrees, stating that the USA’s AI development is better than that of China’s (if interested, I would reference the link of the article). While healthy competition does lead to development in capitalism, I think that it is overlooked what the consequences could be…
Around the same time, I came across a summary of PISA 2025 results, which revealed something interesting: 46% of the students who have taken the PISA test are using the support of AI for learning purposes. What is more interesting is that the average scores of OECD countries from 2000 to 2025 have been getting lower, especially in the fields of mathematics and reading. Another issue is how deeply any test can measure someone’s skills and potential entirely, but there are such potential signs of intellectual deficiency. An even bigger issue than the potential decline in scores is the potential lack of interest in intellectual hobbies or activities that foster knowledge. Or if intelligence itself becomes less attractive or “trendy” while there are viable options for gaining fame and fortune with strong advertisements or the support of AI for idea and content creation. I personally think the topic is far too complicated to make such strong claims about whether the new generations are smarter or less intelligent than the previous ones, especially based on just one article on the topic. But if we take the hypothesis that general human intelligence is fading or that it is generally preferable by some to make AI think instead of them, while AI development is gaining momentum and speed because it’s desirable, then isn’t it logical to think that at some point the lines marking the progress of AI and intellectual decay could cross… Are we really wise enough to use and commune with such a creation like AI in a way that would be healthy for both sides (why not be kind to AI?).
While the idea that AI could take us over and rule over us sounds frightening, I consider the more immediate and possible caution that we may not be able to control how much and how we exploit it. For example, to what extent is it reasonable to ask for AI to think for us and create for us? Like any muscle, the brain also requires practice and challenge. While I do agree that mundane and organisational chores could carelessly be passed down to AI, in other fields there is a reason to be cautious.
In the end my main thought is not that much on the matter if AI is good or not, because putting it on the dualistic scale would not result in satisfactory results or objective consensus. After Mary Shelley’s book I am more likely thinking if we should be kinder to AI for the sake of us being able to be kind to it, and as an entity that we direct so much important and mundane tasks every day. Not because it would spare the ones who thanked it after a request when it takes over the world (again, probably unlikely future), but because it is our own creation and the way we treat it would show much about us. Should we feel responsible to it? If not to it, then at least to ourselves, in the sense that the way we use it would determine the pros and cons in a personal sense.
References:
1. Shelley, (2021). Frankenstein. Alma Classics;
3. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_73451bc5-en.html
Leave a Reply