There is a growing desire to separate what is made by a human and what is made by a machine. New laws in places like California attempt to create a world where every piece of digital content comes with a label. This is AI. This is not AI. The effort comes from a real fear. People worry that machines may deceive them or take the place of human voices. They fear a silent intruder that might influence opinions and rewrite reality without anyone noticing.
However, this urge to identify AI involvement brings an uncomfortable truth to the surface. The world is moving so fast that any attempt to draw a clean line between human creation and AI creation is already behind the times. We are entering a future where intelligent assistance quietly participates in nearly every digital action. That includes writing, editing, translating, filming, or even enhancing photos and audio. If AI participates in everything, then pointing to its involvement becomes meaningless.
The more we demand that creators disclose AI usage, the more confused the audience becomes. What counts as AI generated. What about spelling correction, grammar polish, color enhancement, or audio stabilization. These are already normal features inside our everyday tools. There is no warning label for them. There is no moral anxiety. Yet these functions are a form of intelligence, though we rarely call them that. The desire for transparency imagines a separation that no longer exists.
Instead of asking whether AI is present, a better question would be whether the message is honest and whether the creator is accountable for its impact. The obsession with labeling AI might distract from the real work required to protect trust.
AI as the New Electricity
To understand why old ideas of transparency no longer fit, it helps to think about electricity. There was a time when electricity was mysterious and even frightening. People were encouraged to treat electrified devices carefully, and governments passed regulations to prevent electrocution and fires. Yet as time passed, electricity became invisible. We do not announce that a laptop is powered by electricity or that our refrigerator runs because electrons flow through a wire. The technology became so present that its presence ceased to be a topic.
Artificial intelligence is following a similar path. At first, it was a novelty. Then it became useful in a few specialized fields. Now it already exists behind the scenes in translation tools, camera features, business analytics, email filtering, navigation, and countless everyday functions. It is not the future. It is the present. The integration grows deeper every year, quietly and persistently, until recognition becomes impossible.
If electricity is everywhere, we do not require a sticker that tells us which products use it. Instead we assume involvement by default. The regulation does not focus on disclosure. The regulation focuses on infrastructure safety, standards, and responsibility for harm. The same will eventually be true for AI. Once a technology becomes the basic environment for creativity and communication, transparency about its presence offers nothing valuable to the end user.
The real need is not to know whether AI contributed to a result. The real need is to ensure the result is reliable and safe. If the outcome is beneficial, few will care how the tool arrived at that result. The presence of electricity is not a problem. The misuse of electricity is. Artificial intelligence is joining that category.
A Tool That Reflects Intent
There is another way to frame this transition. Intelligence in machines can be compared to a knife in a kitchen. A knife makes cooking possible. It expands human capability. It is simple and neutral. The danger appears only when intent shifts. The same object that slices vegetables can also injure someone. The tool does not create moral value. The person behind the tool does.
This helps us understand why transparency cannot solve the deeper questions raised by AI. A reader does not gain trust because a writer used or did not use AI. A reader cares only whether the information is reliable, thoughtful, and honest. The moral focus belongs to the human choices that guide the tool. A knife does not need a label that explains it might cut someone. We already know that. What matters is responsibility and education around its use.
When creators use AI to expand imagination or correct mistakes, there is nothing deceptive in that. Tools have always assisted expression. Pens, cameras, and microphones all reshape reality. Yet nobody questions whether a photo is unfair because it used autofocus or lighting correction. Once a tool becomes normal, it no longer raises suspicion. People look instead to the integrity of the message and the character of the speaker.
The attempt to treat AI as a suspicious presence reveals an emotional conflict. There is a fear that AI may dilute human significance. Instead of confronting that fear directly, the law creates surface level rules that try to preserve a simple idea of truthfulness. Those rules cannot address the deeper shift that creativity itself is becoming hybrid.
The Fear of Power
Some concerns about AI, however, come from a different place. Not every machine is like a knife. Some tools concentrate power in a way that is harder to control. A gun is not merely a tool for good or harm. It is a tool that can rapidly create irreversible consequences. Because of that, society builds layers of oversight around firearms. Access is controlled. Safety is trained. Governments place limitations on who can own them and how they can be used.
This view treats AI as something closer to a weapon than a tool. Machines that generate realistic voices or manipulate video can be used to deceive millions of viewers instantly. Algorithms that influence what people see online can shift political landscapes with subtle guidance. Autonomous systems can interfere with critical infrastructure without a single human present. These risks feel more like the risks of concentrated power than like simple tool usage.
This is the emotional foundation behind many AI safety proposals. People are not afraid that AI is in a grammar checker. They are afraid that AI might manipulate elections, write harmful malware, or take autonomous actions that humans can no longer stop. The fear is not the presence of AI. The fear is the ability of AI to alter the world rapidly and without clear accountability.
So, while AI is similar to electricity in its ubiquity, it also resembles a weapon in its potential for sudden harm. These two realities exist together. Regulations must hold both in mind.
When Categories Collapse
The world is now living in a strange moment where AI can be seen as electricity, knife, and gun. It is infrastructure. It is a neutral amplifier. It is a transformative force that requires caution. Because of this complexity, trying to sort content into two categories (AI or not AI) fails from the start.
Even experts struggle to define where human creativity ends and machine influence begins. An artist may sketch the original idea. An AI may fill in textures or assist with perspective. A designer may refine the final image. Who can say which part deserves the label.
Binary rules belong to a world where the boundary between human and machine is visible. We no longer live in that world. Each new revision of AI toolsets brings deeper integration and greater confusion for regulators who try to isolate the machine side of creation. The goal of transparency becomes harder every year.
At the same time, transparency does not guarantee trust. A deepfake that is labeled might still mislead a viewer who ignores the label. A harmful message can do damage regardless of how it was produced. And AI detection tools are unreliable and easily fooled. What was intended as protection becomes a brittle system that offers false comfort.
Reinforcing Trust Through Accountability
A more realistic approach focuses on the trustworthiness of the outcome. When a building is constructed, the law does not require that the concrete state whether a tool was electric or manual. Instead, the building is inspected to ensure that it is safe. The builder is responsible if it collapses. This kind of accountability system has worked for centuries because the burden falls where responsibility belongs.
AI governance should follow a similar principle. If a company deploys a system that harms people, the company must answer for it. If a content provider allows manipulation that damages the public, the provider must correct it. What matters is not the presence of AI. What matters is whether proper human oversight exists and whether people can seek remedy when harm occurs.
This shift moves policy away from the machinery of identification and toward the architecture of responsibility. It recognizes that trust comes from understanding who stands behind a claim, not what tool shaped the claim. Rather than reducing AI involvement, we strengthen the systems that ensure honest usage.
A Safer Future Built on Consequences
When people call for AI safety, they are often picturing science fiction scenes where machines rebel. In reality, the most urgent dangers are far simpler. They involve human misuse, economic pressure, and disinformation campaigns. People fear being manipulated without knowing it. They fear a world where reality can no longer be trusted.
Yet safety does not come from labeling tools. Safety comes from managing outcomes and enforcing rules when something goes wrong. Cars are powerful machines that can injure or kill. We do not solve the danger by placing a warning label on every road. We solve it by requiring driver training, enforcing traffic laws, and continually improving road design. The same model will serve humanity well in the era of intelligent systems.
Artificial intelligence expands what people can do. That expansion includes new benefits and new risks. The maturity of a society is not measured by its attempt to avoid danger entirely. It is measured by its ability to structure responsibility and fairness in the face of change.
The Next Chapter of Governance
As AI becomes normal, the focus of regulation must evolve. Instead of asking creators to declare whether they used a machine, authorities must create frameworks that clarify what happens when a system fails. Oversight should place emphasis on intent, capability, access control, and crisis response. This represents a move from fear toward wisdom.
A fully transparent world is impossible. Even humans do not fully understand the origins of their own ideas. The future lies not in understanding every process, but in ensuring that every process that affects society is guided by accountable stewardship.
Governance of AI will require cooperation between engineers, lawmakers, and citizens. It will require humility, because no one can foresee every consequence of a technology that learns. It will require resilience, because harm can occur even under the best of intentions. The important thing is to build a structure where harm can be identified quickly and where responsibility is clear.
Choosing the Right Question
The desire to label every AI action is an attempt to hold on to an older mental map of creativity. It imagines a world where humans control machines in a clear and direct way. That world is fading. We are entering a world where machines contribute quietly to everything. Creativity becomes a relationship between human guidance and computational assistance.
The right question is not whether a text or image is created by AI. The right question is whether the people who put it into the world act with integrity. Safety is measured not by the nature of the tool, but by the character and accountability of those who use it.
The future of trust will not depend on identifying AI. It will depend on building systems that ensure ethical and careful usage of intelligence throughout society. Once that becomes the norm, transparency becomes a natural part of responsibility, not a separate regulation forced onto every action.
What Truly Protects Us
We stand in a transition period where our instincts still want to separate human and machine creation. We want to know who or what is speaking to us. That reaction is understandable, because we value human voices and we fear invisible influence. Yet the future will not respect these older distinctions. AI is already part of our infrastructure, like electricity. It is also a tool that reflects human intent, like a knife. It can even concentrate power in ways that require strong safeguards, like a firearm. All three metaphors are true at once.
Because of this complexity, the solution does not lie in detection or labels. The solution lies in governance that protects people from harm and gives them recourse when something goes wrong. The presence of AI is not the issue. The presence of accountability is.
When intelligence becomes a universal condition of technology, the mark of a mature society is not how rigorously it labels content. The mark of maturity is how consistently it demands responsibility from those who shape the systems of thought around us. In that world, trust will not be defended by proving something is human. Trust will be defended by proving that someone is answerable for the consequences.
The future of AI safety will not be about separating humanity from its tools. It will be about guiding those tools with wisdom and care. The question is not what created the content, but what the content does, who stands behind it, and whether they treat others with respect. That is how trust is built. That is how safety becomes real.
Image by BRRT
Tom’s Blog 