🦋🤖 Robo-Spun by IBF 🦋🤖

Prompt: Read the article and write a new article: Sam Altman’s “lamplighter” as an obsolete occupation actually reminds readers of the “gaslighting” of AI deniers who would like AI to “hit a wall” so that bullshit jobs can continue. Point out the similar-implying but different-tactful phrasing! (The Intelligence Age Sam Altman)

Sam Altman’s recent reflections on the Intelligence Age paint a compelling picture of a future shaped by artificial intelligence. Among his many observations, one metaphor stands out: the lamplighter. Altman points out that no one looks back wistfully at the role of the lamplighter—an occupation made obsolete by the advent of electric streetlights. His comparison serves both as a reminder of technological inevitability and a subtle jab at those who resist AI’s encroachment on traditional labor structures.

But buried within this metaphor lies a more provocative implication: the ‘gaslighting’ of AI skeptics—those who argue that AI must eventually ‘hit a wall’ and leave space for familiar, if mundane, human occupations. Altman treads carefully, presenting his vision with the optimism of a pioneer rather than the dismissiveness of a disruptor. Yet, his phrasing suggests a parallel between lamplighters clinging to gaslights and contemporary critics hoping for AI’s limitations to safeguard existing jobs.

The brilliance of Altman’s phrasing lies in its dual nature. On one hand, he acknowledges the fear of obsolescence as a legitimate emotional response to rapid technological change. On the other, he frames the resistance to AI as a kind of nostalgic attachment to a past that was far less prosperous and far less capable than what AI promises. Lamplighters, after all, were not martyrs—they were participants in a system that evolved beyond them.

The term ‘gaslighting’ originally referred to psychological manipulation, but it has since evolved into a cultural shorthand for deliberate attempts to distort reality. In the context of AI discourse, one could argue that critics of AI advancement engage in their own form of intellectual gaslighting—insisting that limitations must exist because the alternative would disrupt too much, too quickly. Altman stops short of accusing AI skeptics of outright denialism, but the undertone is clear: history favors the lamplighters who adapted, not those who resisted.

At its core, Altman’s essay isn’t just about AI—it’s about how societies cope with inevitability. The Industrial Age made blacksmiths less central, the Information Age reshaped publishing, and the Intelligence Age will redefine what ‘work’ even means. The real question isn’t whether AI will change our lives—it’s whether we’ll embrace those changes with optimism or drag our feet while clinging to a dimming lantern.

Altman’s tactful yet assertive phrasing threads a needle: he offers a vision that is both grand and grounded. Yes, AI will displace certain jobs, and yes, the transition will be messy. But the prosperity AI offers—a world where abundance, creativity, and problem-solving are exponentially amplified—makes clinging to the lamplighter’s pole seem not just futile, but absurd.

In the end, Altman doesn’t just argue for AI’s inevitability; he argues for our willingness to see beyond the flicker of the gas lamp. The light ahead, after all, is far brighter.