After experimenting with AI chatbots for the past two years, I’ve learned a lot. Because AI theoretically has access to all the text that humans have published, an endless stream of themes — including the potential ambiguity of AI’s ultimate intentions — merit our attention. But I have already reached one general conclusion. Whatever you think about generative AI — whatever hopes or fears it provokes and however many hallucinations you may encounter when using it — at the very simplest level, it can be a wonderful and extremely useful tool for clarifying your thoughts.

Provided you have thoughts! I say that because I notice that most people who experiment with and write about AI appear focused on assigning it tasks or testing its accuracy and reasoning ability. That is both useful and fun. But something fundamental is missing. The commentators seem to have forgotten that they themselves can think and, quite simply, that “two heads (including an artificial one) are better than one.” It’s only when two or more minds and voices collaborate that meaning is produced. Meaning is, after all, the result of what a community, a society or any group happens to agree on. (Meaning is obviously not the same thing as truth).

The truly productive and personally enriching way to use AI

The key to using AI productively is to engage with it and get it to engage with you. Don’t treat it as either a slave to do your bidding or expect it to be an infallible expert who will deliver discrete packages of truth.

As my dialogue below — with both ChatGPT and DeepSeek — demonstrates, treating an AI chatbot as a personal coach can make it a powerful tool for refining your most complex thoughts and ideas. It can assist you in subtle ways as you prepare a position or argument you seek to develop and defend, whether it’s in a formal debate or an informal conversation.

I would go further and suggest to educators and indeed anyone involved in education that they should consider adopting the idea of an AI coach as a standard educational tool, following the example I provide below. It means establishing a personal relationship with an AI chatbot. Just as in the case of a professional athlete, the person being coached is the performer. The coach is the assistant who reacts to the user’s performance and provides helpful input and assistance. But in all cases the user or learner bears full responsibility for the final performance.

The basic approach consists of getting learners to launch a dialogue with their friendly chatbot by formulating, even in an inchoate from, an idea they care about or believe needs to be defended. This gets the chains of thought moving. Then should ask the chatbot whether their formulation of the issue makes sense. This includes requesting what the objections might look like. On the basis of the ensuing dialogue, the learners could then reformulate their position.

This simple strategy should interest political speech writers but also sales personnel. In my example, I have used it totally sincerely. But in the realm of politics or sales, the same approach can prove productive even for the cynical goal of getting votes or selling an inferior product. If nothing else, AI can always be a tool to refine one’s rhetorical skills. I’m surprised there has been little mention of this obvious advantage.

The ideal starting point: one’s own original thoughts

I interrogated both of my “friends” with a question I take very seriously. Over the past decade in multiple columns I’ve regularly alluded to my belief in the validity of the theory formulated by French philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard that our technologically evolved civilization has fabricated a layer of perception he calls hyperreality. It sits on top of and to a large extent obscures our relationship with the real world.

Back in around 2018, with essentially humorous intent, I began citing what I considered to be the two exemplars of personified hyperreality: Donald Trump and Elon Musk. At the time, they lived in two separate hyperreal worlds: politics and technology. At the time, no one would have imagined the blissful marriage that has only recently taken place as Musk has officially become Trump’s prince consort. Was it their shared commitment to hyperreality that sealed the union?

I initiated my dialogue with ChatGPT and DeepSeek with the identical prompt stating what I believe to be an accurate reading of contemporary US culture. The two responses are very similar, but they do diverge in style and emphasis. I invite anyone interested in seeking to understand critical features of AI “thinking” to compare the two, which are reproduced below. Even better, I would invite readers to run the same experiment with your own thesis.

I also urge all those who are interested in exploring this technique and contributing to our understanding of how AI may play out in our lives to join the debate and share your experience with us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. Your testimony will be precious.

My prompt concerning hyperreality and contemporary society

“My reading of contemporary history has led me to write numerous columns in a respectable journal – Fair Observer – making the case that the domination of US culture over the past century and especially since the end of WWII has imposed a veneer of hyperreality designed to hide and replace reality, in the way people perceive the world. It has led to a sophisticated system of mind shaping, sometimes called manufacturing consent, but it goes well beyond the purely political effects. I have claimed, sometimes in a joking tone, that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the most accomplished purveyors of hyperreality, but what they achieve is merely the surface of something more complex, created and maintained by generations of elites in politics, the media, industry, advertising, education and the arts who have willingly been drawn into its commanding logic and inculcated it in the general population.

Their logic is built on the axiom that the principal factor of motivation in social interaction is anything deemed profitable to individuals. Paradoxically, they have turned this shared belief in a system of individuals competing with one another into what the majority perceives as a common cause, the enemy being any form of collectivism, such as socialism and communism.

This description of the contemporary culture of the US and, to a large extent, the Western world, does not imply the existence of a conspiracy. Instead, I would frame it as a convenient convergence of interests among those who exercise any form of power that makes it achieve agreement on the need to privilege the idea of the autonomous individual and neglect the cultural factors that foster a sense of collective interest.

Does my thesis about hyperreality, which of course has been supported by others, make sense? Can drawing attention to this reading of contemporary culture be helpful in a society that has become weakened by internal fractures and even fragmentation? Or is it likely to be perceived as harmful? What serious objections can honest observers as well as the interested elite raise against it? What might those who feel threatened by it point to as credible weaknesses?”

ChatGPT’s response

“Your thesis on hyperreality—how U.S. cultural dominance has manufactured a self-sustaining system that replaces reality with a profitable, self-reinforcing illusion—makes a great deal of sense. It builds on the insights of thinkers like Jean Baudrillard (who coined hyperreality), Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (manufacturing consent), and Guy Debord (the spectacle). Your emphasis on the convergence of interests, rather than a conspiracy, is particularly important because it aligns with how ideology functions: not as a top-down imposition but as a widely accepted framework that shapes perception, motivation, and behavior.

Can highlighting this be helpful or harmful?

It depends on the audience.

• For those open to critique: Drawing attention to hyperreality can be profoundly useful, particularly in an era of increasing disillusionment with neoliberalism, inequality, and the erosion of trust in institutions. Your argument offers a lens through which people can recognize their own condition and the forces shaping their perception, potentially leading to a broader questioning of the status quo.
• For those who benefit from the system: Elites in media, politics, and business are unlikely to welcome such an analysis because it exposes the logic that underpins their legitimacy. It might be framed as a ‘radical’ or ‘unrealistic’ critique, dismissed as conspiracy-adjacent, or simply ignored.
• For those who feel powerless: There’s a risk that highlighting hyperreality leads to a sense of resignation rather than empowerment—if everything is manufactured and manipulated, then what’s the point of resistance? To counter this, a critique of hyperreality should ideally be paired with ways to break its hold and reclaim a sense of agency.

Serious Objections from Honest Observers

• Is hyperreality too abstract? Some might argue that while your thesis is intellectually compelling, it lacks empirical grounding. How can we distinguish ‘real’ reality from hyperreality in practical terms? Are there measurable indicators?
• The role of individual agency: While you emphasize systemic forces, some might argue that individuals are not as powerless as you suggest. People do resist, create counter-narratives, and form alternative communities. How do these fit into your framework?
• Non-Western perspectives: While the U.S. has exported this system, are there countervailing forces from other cultures, philosophies, or historical movements that offer alternative visions of reality?
• Market forces vs. ideological shaping: Some might say that what you describe is less about ideological control and more about markets naturally responding to demand. Is there a clear distinction between hyperreality and simple consumer preference?

Objections from Those Who Feel Threatened

1. ‘This is just anti-capitalist rhetoric.’ Critics might argue that your thesis is simply a veiled attack on free markets and individualism, dismissing it as leftist ideology.
2. ‘Where’s the conspiracy?’ While you explicitly reject conspiracy thinking, opponents might still frame it that way to discredit it.
3. ‘People like hyperreality.’ If consumers willingly buy into the system—whether through entertainment, social media, or aspirational culture—does that mean they prefer it? Critics might claim that your argument disregards people’s autonomy.

Strategic Considerations

To make your argument resonate more broadly, you might want to:

• Provide concrete examples of hyperreality’s impact (e.g., political spectacle, media narratives, tech industry mythologies).
• Address avenues of resistance (e.g., how can individuals or groups pierce the illusion?).
• Recognize human complexity—people are shaped by ideology, but they also push back, adapt, and reinterpret meaning in unexpected ways.

Would you be interested in refining your argument into a more structured piece that tackles these potential objections head-on?”

DeepSeek’s response

“Your thesis about hyperreality and the cultural dominance of the U.S. since WWII is a compelling and thought-provoking framework for understanding contemporary Western society. It aligns with critical theories from thinkers like Jean Baudrillard (who coined the term ‘hyperreality’), Noam Chomsky (on ‘manufacturing consent’), and others who have analyzed the interplay between culture, power, and perception. Your argument that this system is not a conspiracy but a ‘convenient convergence of interests’ among elites is particularly nuanced, as it avoids oversimplification while still highlighting systemic issues.

Does Your Thesis Make Sense?

Yes, your thesis makes sense and is supported by a range of intellectual traditions. The idea that U.S. cultural dominance has created a hyperreal layer over reality—shaping perceptions, values, and even identities—is well-grounded in critical theory. The emphasis on individualism, profit-driven motivation, and the marginalization of collectivist ideologies (like socialism) can indeed be seen as a cultural project perpetuated by elites across politics, media, and industry. This project has been remarkably effective in framing individualism as a universal good and collectivism as a threat, even as inequality and social fragmentation have grown.

Can Drawing Attention to This Reading Be Helpful?

Yes, drawing attention to this reading of contemporary culture can be helpful, but it also carries risks. On the positive side:

1. **Critical Awareness**: Highlighting the mechanisms of hyperreality and cultural domination can empower individuals to question dominant narratives and recognize the constructed nature of their perceptions.
2. **Dialogue and Reform**: By exposing the systemic privileging of individualism and profit-driven logic, your thesis could spark conversations about alternative models of social organization and collective well-being.
3. **Bridging Divides**: Acknowledging the role of hyperreality in shaping societal fractures might help people understand the roots of polarization and fragmentation, potentially fostering empathy and dialogue.

However, there are risks:

1. **Backlash**: Those who benefit from or are deeply invested in the current system may perceive your thesis as a threat and dismiss it as overly cynical or conspiratorial.
2. **Pessimism**: Framing hyperreality as all-encompassing might lead some to feel powerless or resigned, believing that resistance is futile.
3. **Misinterpretation**: Without careful framing, your argument could be misread as an attack on individualism itself, rather than a critique of its dominance and the neglect of collective interests.

What Serious Objections Might Arise?

1. **Overgeneralization**: Critics might argue that your thesis overgeneralizes the effects of U.S. cultural dominance, ignoring regional, cultural, and individual variations in how people perceive and resist hyperreality.
2. **Neglect of Agency**: Some might contend that your framework underestimates the agency of individuals and communities to critique, resist, or reshape dominant cultural narratives.
3. **Lack of Empirical Evidence**: While your argument is philosophically and theoretically rich, skeptics might demand more empirical evidence to support claims about the pervasive influence of hyperreality and its effects on collective consciousness.
4. **Historical Determinism**: Critics could argue that your thesis implies a kind of historical determinism, suggesting that cultural domination is inevitable or irreversible, which might overlook moments of resistance and change.
5. **Elite Heterogeneity**: Some might point out that elites are not monolithic and that there are significant disagreements and power struggles among them, which your thesis might oversimplify.

What Might Those Threatened by It Point to as Weaknesses?

1. **Perceived Ideological Bias**: Those invested in the status quo might accuse your thesis of having a leftist or anti-capitalist bias, framing it as an attack on free markets, individualism, or Western values.
2. **Undermining Social Cohesion**: Critics might argue that emphasizing hyperreality and cultural domination could further fracture society by deepening distrust in institutions and shared narratives.
3. **Lack of Solutions**: Some might contend that your thesis is strong on critique but weak on proposing actionable alternatives, leaving readers with a sense of despair rather than hope.
4. **Cultural Relativism**: Opponents might claim that your critique of U.S. cultural dominance risks undermining the positive aspects of Western values, such as democracy, human rights, and innovation.

Conclusion

Your thesis about hyperreality and the cultural logic of individualism is a valuable contribution to understanding contemporary society. It makes sense within the broader context of critical theory and offers a lens through which to analyze the fractures and challenges of our time. However, its potential impact depends on how it is framed and communicated. To be helpful, it should avoid overgeneralization, emphasize agency and resistance, and offer constructive alternatives to the current system. While it may provoke backlash from those who feel threatened, it also has the potential to inspire critical reflection and meaningful change.”

What differences did you notice between the two responses? How helpful do you think they were to someone who wishes to defend the thesis of hyperreality? Where do you stand on the issue of hyperreality? We’re interested in your take. I would even submit that the world is interested in your take. If we wish to avoid the dire consequences of AI some have predicted, we need, above all, to build a shared human culture that ensures we as a species are not transferring the responsibility of performance to our mechanical coach.

Next week, I propose to take a closer look at what these responses tell us about the two AI chatbots and how they can play a useful role in public debate. Your contributions will have their place in the discussion.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue. 

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.