Heidegger thinks about tools like so: a tool is something (a thing that has being in the Heideggerian sense, not necessarily an object) that represents an extension of human capabilities in some way. A tool is thus any kind of thing that *lets you do something you wouldn't otherwise have been able to*. The important (for us) conceptual leap here is that when a tool works well, or isn't broken, it develops what Heidegger describes as a "ready-to-hand" quality: the tool fades into the background as a kind of human-tool gestalt of a human with the additional capability afforded by a tool forms. As a simple example of this, consider eating with a fork. When the fork is well-designed and not broken, *you don't explicitly have "I am using a fork" in your conscious mind while eating dinner*.
How many times have you seen someone say “LLMs are just a tool” in a discussion about AI?
I think the element this post is missing is the “Its just a tool” argument is in reaction to the SV cult idea that they are building a machine god that will fundamentally remake the world in its image. Compared to that, “its just a tool” is a completely rational response, yes tools are important and not completely neutral objects, but they are things that modify and shape what people do not fundamental inflection points in the history of the world as the AI boosters (and doomers for that matter) would have you believe.
I think the element this post is missing is the “Its just a tool” argument is in reaction to the SV cult idea that they are building a machine god that will fundamentally remake the world in its image. Compared to that, “its just a tool” is a completely rational response, yes tools are important and not completely neutral objects, but they are things that modify and shape what people do not fundamental inflection points in the history of the world as the AI boosters (and doomers for that matter) would have you believe.