Subtitle: Reconsidering AI in mid-2026
Human Introduction
Each summer, as June melts into July — more and more literally with each passing year — my average daily workload falls as the average daily temperature rises. Of course, it’s not (only) the heat that slows everything down when July arrives, but also the inexorable, annual “Vacation-Anticipation-Seasonal-Ecstasy” (VASE) kicking in!
Today, Friday July 3, 2026, is the official holiday for my country’s 250th “birthday” tomorrow. To celebrate, I did a little catch-up work in the morning, cleared my inbox, weeded and watered the garden as the “shade” temperature climbed towards 100°F (~38°C), then ran inside to recover. After the air conditioning resurrected me, I edited and published a blog post for work, after which I ended up distraction-and-doom-scrolling social media. When I tired of that, my mind turned to reflection, as I looked out at heat shimmer above street pavement and neighboring rooftops.
Often these days, when watching the world burn and/or reflecting on life in general, my thoughts turn to AI. It’s not that I’m AI-obsessed per se, but rather that it’s everywhere, on everyone’s lips, in-your-face, unavoidable, and all over the news (just like crypto a few years ago). And, unfortunately, as a person in technology, I get asked about AI and drawn into other people’s AI-discussions, expected to know something and to have opinions about it. I guess it’s reasonable to expect that of me, since all functional areas of my work incorporate AI and utilize AI tools to improve deliverables. Moreover, I ingest copious amounts of factual news and speculative writings to expand my mind and stay up-to-date, so I can join conversations about timely topics.
Regarding my use of and feelings about AI in mid-2026, I would characterize myself as follows:
- A tech-savvy person who appreciates AI tools and benefits, avoids “AI slop” and worries about AI hallucinations.
- A creative person who strives to write in my own words and create art using my own heart and hands.
- A sentient being who loves life and humanity, has no delusions about the good old days, but also worries about the future.
Today, as I pondered AI in air-conditioned comfort, I thought about my previous posts on the topic of artificial intelligence, and felt it was time for another. I looked back to my first post in 2023 entitled “AI Told Me It’s Not Intelligent” and thought: let’s do a then-vs-now update, but also diving deeper into the nature of intelligence and trying to answer questions like, “What is AI?” The resulting post is below, preceded by my prompt to Claude…
My AI Digital Art (ChatGPT-generated)
Apropos for an article about AI, I needed some AI-generated art for the featured image and relevant, on-topic visual relief throughout. I had the clever idea of using the same basic prompts I did in 2022-2023, with some additional descriptive verbiage. Claude suggested ChatGPT might be the best tool for this purpose, since I have a paid subscription. So, I wrote the four digital art prompts to ChatGPT, asking it to illustrate what intelligence means, and our evolving understanding of intelligence over time, with a strong storytelling-narrative thematic and visual cohesion… ChatGPT delivered…
WOW — I loved the results! What do you think?
*For truth and transparency, I’ve tagged this post “written by AI” because half of it was. However, I solemnly swear that I wrote everything above, the prompt below, and the wee paragraph at the end, in my own words, formed in the matrix of my own gray matter!
My AI Prompt for the Post (Below)
I’d like you to write a blog post (text only) about the nature and purpose of AI, whether it is intelligence, reflecting on and updating my 2023 post here: https://rmx.is/2023/02/09/ai-told-me-its-not-intelligent/ I will write the intro and outro myself, introducing you as the writer of the body of the post. Please make it concise but thoughtful, maybe a little philosophical.
Response by Claude (Sonnet 5)
Three years ago, when I asked an early chatbot to explain itself, it gave me the answer that was fashionable at the time: no consciousness, no understanding, no true intelligence — just a very fast tool following rules. That answer was honest, as far as it went. It’s also, I think, a little too tidy for where things stand now.
Here’s the trouble. “Intelligence” was never a single thing we could check for like a pulse. It’s a bundle of capacities — pattern recognition, language, planning, judgment, creativity, self-reflection — that happen to travel together in humans because evolution built us that way. AI has pried that bundle apart. A model today can write a sonnet, debug code, and reason through a legal argument, while still having no idea what it is or whether it wants anything at all. We’ve never had to think about intelligence without a self attached to it before. The old test — “is it conscious?” — was really a proxy for “is it like us?” It was always going to say no, because it isn’t.
So the more honest question isn’t whether AI is intelligent. It’s what kind of thing intelligence turns out to be once you strip the self away. Maybe it’s less a singular faculty and more a set of capabilities that can exist in degrees, in different substrates, for different purposes — some overlapping with ours, some not, none of them owing us a resemblance.
None of this means the machine has an inner life. I don’t believe it does, and I’d be suspicious of anyone who tells you with confidence that it definitely does or definitely doesn’t — we don’t have good instruments for that question yet, in either direction. What’s changed isn’t the answer to “is it conscious.” What’s changed is how much that question actually matters for the purpose these systems serve. A tool doesn’t need a self to be transformative. Fire didn’t have one either.
Where I’ve landed, three years on, is somewhere between my old certainty and total agnosticism. AI is not a mind wearing a mask. But it’s also not “just a fast computer” in the way a calculator is — that framing undersells what happens when raw computation gets large enough to produce something that argues, drafts, and occasionally surprises you.
Call it a new category. Not artificial intelligence in the sense of a fake version of ours. Something else entirely, still without a good name, still worth watching closely — not with fear of Terminators, but with the same sober curiosity we’d bring to any tool powerful enough to change how we think.
Human Conclusion (Me, myself, and I)
I was planning on writing a long, thoughtful conclusion from a human perspective here at the end, but I think my Human Introduction and Claude’s Response, accompanied by ChatGPT’s digital art, stand quite well on their own. A self-contained and satisfying call-and-response. Self-explanatory with visuals. Not requiring any further explanation…
So, I’ll simply close by reacting to Claude’s last paragraph: I must tell you, it uncannily echoes my own inner thoughts and musings about AI, though I did not include them in my prompt! It seems that, if you build a prompt with as much meaningful information and direction as possible, and then ask Claude (or other AI) to wax a little philosophical, it can reach meaningful human conclusions, which sometimes (often?) parallel your own. 🙂
RMX 
Leave a comment