The movie Surrogates introduced a strange but powerful vision of society. People never left their homes. They lived through robotic avatars, flawless bodies that moved through the city while the human self remained safe and hidden. On the surface this looked efficient and clean, but beneath it lay the unease of distance. The human being was no longer fully present in the world, only represented through a polished shell.
That imagined world is not as far from ours as it once seemed. The avatars that now stand in front of us are not machines of steel and plastic but algorithms of language and perception. When a long paper, a dense report, or even a personal message passes from one person to another, it is increasingly filtered and interpreted by AI. The visible presence in communication is not always the human voice itself but a mediated one, prepared and adjusted before it arrives.
This split raises an important question. What happens to courage, honesty, and vulnerability when the human voice rarely appears unedited? The parallel to the Surrogates society is not perfect, but it is instructive. Just as bodies retreated indoors, our unfiltered words may retreat into private drafts, while AI presents the safe and polished version to the world.
AI as the First Reader
For centuries reading has meant a direct meeting between writer and reader. A person sat with a text and gave it careful attention, moving through each line, absorbing the rhythm of the sentences and the weight of the argument. That form of labor is now shifting. AI can serve as the first reader, scanning an entire book or article and producing a summary within seconds.
The change is practical. No individual can keep up with the flood of information produced every day. Researchers, professionals, and even casual readers can turn to AI to select the essential points, saving their own attention for the questions that matter. The first encounter with a text is no longer human. It is machine interpretation, followed by human reflection.
This shift alters the writer’s task as well. If authors know that their audience will rarely read every word, the pressure to craft concise and careful sentences diminishes. It becomes natural to write freely, trusting the mediating tool to refine and restructure before the text reaches a human eye. The audience may only meet a transformed version of the original draft.
Two Worlds, Both Fully Real
Mechanization has already taught us that new tools do not erase human skill but transform its meaning. When machines took over the work of brute strength, the human body did not lose value. Instead, new arenas like sport emerged where physical prowess remained celebrated. A sprinter cannot outrun a car, yet the ability to run fast still draws admiration and respect.
The same logic can apply to language. If AI handles the programmatic side of communication, human expression will not disappear. It will shift to new spaces where rawness and risk still carry weight. Literature, art, and certain kinds of political speech may become more treasured because they resist mediation. The contrast between refined outputs and authentic voices will sharpen, giving both realms their place.
This dual existence may feel strange, but it is consistent with history. We already live in parallel worlds of efficiency and expression. Machines feed us, transport us, and build our infrastructure, yet we still garden, run marathons, and paint canvases. The rise of AI communication does not abolish authenticity. It pushes it into new contexts where its value can be recognized with even greater clarity.
The Programmatic Realm
In the programmatic realm, the presence of AI feels natural. Reports, technical updates, and administrative messages are already repetitive and structured. Allowing machines to refine and deliver these texts saves time and reduces error. A messy draft can be turned into a professional note. A sprawling set of meeting minutes can be shaped into a clear summary.
This realm also highlights new requirements. If AI is to read papers on our behalf, then research must be published in formats that machines can easily process. Data must be well structured, methods transparent, and references consistent. Reproducibility becomes not only a matter of human review but of machine readability. The standards of communication adapt to the new first reader.
The gains are considerable. Time once wasted on polishing surface details can be invested in substance. Instead of trimming sentences or checking grammar, professionals can focus on insight, judgment, and decision. AI becomes the steward of routine language, while humans carry the responsibility of direction and meaning.
The Realm of Presence
The other realm is different. It is the realm of presence, where people show themselves directly, without filters or surrogates. Literature, performance, and live debate belong here. What draws audiences to a poem or a speech is not perfection but vulnerability, the possibility of failure, and the courage of standing exposed.
Even in a mediated society, there will be hunger for this. Just as crowds gather for live concerts despite the existence of flawless recordings, people will continue to seek unpolished voices. The raw note of passion, the crack in the throat, or the sharp word in a heated exchange all carry meaning that cannot be captured in refinement.
This realm depends on risk. A speaker who improvises may stumble. A writer who publishes without polish may sound clumsy. Yet the very imperfection is the point. It assures the audience that a human being stands behind the words, present and vulnerable. That assurance will grow more precious as mediated voices become the norm.
Filters, Feelings, and the Reduction of Harm
One of the strongest promises of AI mediation is the reduction of harm. Online spaces are often harsh, filled with aggressive speech, insults, and hostility. Young people in particular have suffered from the weight of such attacks. The idea that AI could intercept and soften these messages before they reach their targets is appealing.
Imagine a hostile comment reshaped into respectful critique, or a careless insult rewritten into neutral feedback. The recipient would still receive information but without the sting of cruelty. Social environments could become calmer, with less escalation and fewer wounds inflicted in passing.
This would not eliminate all conflict, but it could reduce the unnecessary suffering that comes from thoughtless words. It would also align with the broader historical trend toward greater kindness and consideration in public life. Just as past generations abandoned practices once considered acceptable, our generation may come to see unfiltered online cruelty as an outdated relic.
The Risk of Overquieting
Yet every reduction of cruelty carries its own risks. If all language is softened, society may lose its instruments of alarm. Harsh words sometimes reveal injustice. Anger has historically fueled reform movements and shaken complacency. If AI continually polishes the sharp edges, it may also blunt the moral force of protest.
This could lead to a strange double life. Public channels would appear calm, while underground channels preserved the raw and angry voice. People who wish to speak unfiltered may simply move to spaces where mediation cannot reach. The same technological force that creates peace in one realm may intensify conflict in another.
The challenge is balance. We need spaces where speech is moderated for safety and others where speech is free for confrontation. A healthy society does not silence passion but channels it into forms where it can be expressed without destroying human dignity. AI can help construct those boundaries, but it cannot decide the values that guide them.
Authenticity Anxiety in a Filtered Age
The habit of constant mediation can create its own anxieties. Social media has already shown how filters distort self-perception. When every photograph is adjusted, people lose confidence in their real appearance. The rise of “BeReal” was meant as a response, but even that is a curated form of authenticity.
Language will face a similar challenge. If every message is adjusted, people may begin to doubt the worth of their unedited voice. They may feel incapable of speaking without assistance, or ashamed of how they sound in their natural register. Over time this can erode agency and weaken the very skills that communication depends upon.
To resist this, communities must cultivate spaces where unfiltered speech is valued. Debating clubs, classrooms, religious gatherings, and artistic circles can all provide environments where the raw voice is heard and respected. These practices will be vital in keeping the human spirit confident in its own presence.
Governance of the Mediator
Mediators are never neutral. Every filter reflects choices about what counts as acceptable, polite, or harmful. These decisions are inherently political. They determine which voices are amplified and which are softened. Trust in the mediator depends on transparency and plurality.
If a single company or government controls the dominant filter, public debate may be subtly shaped in its favor. Citizens may receive a distorted sense of what others are saying, not because of direct censorship but because of quiet mediation. The risk of capture is real and demands attention.
The safeguard is diversity. Multiple mediators should exist, each with visible standards and open methods. People should be able to compare outputs, see how their words were altered, and choose which filters they trust. Only through such pluralism can mediation remain a tool of kindness rather than control.
Design Principles for a Kinder Public Sphere
To make mediation serve the public good, a few principles are essential. First is consent. People should know when their words are altered and be able to decide whether to participate. Second is auditability. It should be possible to review the changes and understand the logic behind them. Third is diversity. No single filter should dominate the landscape.
Education is equally important. People must learn to read mediated texts critically. Just as we learn to recognize the difference between advertising and news, we must learn to recognize the difference between raw voice and mediated speech. This literacy will help us interpret with care, neither mistaking the polished for the authentic nor rejecting the value of refinement.
These principles will not guarantee perfection, but they can keep the balance between safety and authenticity. They can make mediation a servant of kindness rather than a substitute for it.
Workflows for Research and Enterprise
In professional settings, the dual structure of raw backend and refined frontend will become normal. A researcher may pour unedited thoughts into a draft, knowing that AI will structure and polish before publication. A manager may send a rough outline of an email, confident that AI will present it in a professional tone to recipients.
This raises questions for review and compliance. If reviewers themselves rely on AI to read submissions, then the standards for evidence must adapt. Data, methods, and results must be structured so that machines can evaluate them accurately. The cycle of writing and reading becomes a cycle of drafting and mediating, with humans stepping in for judgment rather than transcription.
The result may be more efficient and less stressful communication. Instead of struggling with form, professionals can focus on substance. The raw energy of thought remains in the background, while the polished presence ensures clarity in the foreground.
Vignettes of the Near Future
Consider a simple email thread. One colleague writes in a stream of consciousness, full of half sentences and tangents. Another receives it not as clutter but as a clean, clear summary, because AI has transformed it on the way. The rawness remains hidden, but communication flows smoothly.
Picture a research seminar. Dozens of papers arrive, each hundreds of pages long. Instead of despair, participants receive condensed outlines prepared by agents. Humans then gather not to parse text but to argue meaning and implication. The task shifts from extraction to judgment.
Imagine a public forum that offers two lanes. One is mediated, ensuring polite exchange. The other is raw, allowing sharper expression with agreed boundaries. Participants choose which lane to enter, and both are recognized as legitimate. The architecture itself preserves the balance between safety and freedom.
A Long Arc Toward Less Cruelty
History suggests that cruelty is not a fixed human destiny. Practices once common have been abandoned. Public executions, casual harassment, and unchecked exploitation have been pushed to the margins by evolving norms. This arc is uneven but real. Over generations, societies have moved toward broader recognition of dignity.
AI mediation could become one more step in that arc. By removing some of the sting from everyday exchanges, it could reduce the harm people inflict on each other without even thinking. This would not create utopia, but it would align with the long movement toward less needless suffering.
The danger is to mistake technology for culture. Machines cannot create kindness on their own. Institutions, values, and habits must support the work. AI can be a tool in the process, but the human decision to cherish dignity will remain the true source of progress.
Toward a Kinder Future with Two Voices
The future will likely hold two voices. One will be raw, carrying the imperfections and risks of human presence. The other will be mediated, refined by AI to reduce harm and increase clarity. Neither should cancel the other. Each has its place, and together they form a richer communication landscape.
Our responsibility is to maintain balance. We must keep spaces where unfiltered presence matters, and also embrace the relief that mediation can bring. We must design institutions that allow both voices to thrive, and teach ourselves to move between them with discernment.
If we succeed, we may discover that technology is not a barrier to kindness but a channel for it. AI may help us live more gently with each other, while still preserving the courage and intensity that make human life meaningful. The quiet work of kindness will continue, shaped but not erased by our new surrogates.
Image by Simone_ph
Tom’s Blog 