Writing With AI Is Not New — The 2,400-Year Argument Against It

The essay traces a historical pattern: whenever a new writing or thinking technology emerged, defenders of the old order claimed something essential would be lost. Socrates warned that writing would destroy memory; an abbot argued printing would cheapen devotion; critics said typewriters were cold, word processors would erase literature, and search engines would kill deep reading. In every case, the author notes, the predicted catastrophe did not occur. Instead, humans kept their earlier capacities and used the new tool to reach further. The author's position aligns with Reid Hoffman's view that the ethical issue is not the tool but human intention — specifically, whether someone reads, understands, and takes responsibility for what they publish. The author's own practice with Phin illustrates this: he remains the thinking agent, directing structure, rewriting drafts, and iterating with the AI as a collaborator rather than abdicating authorship.