Judge

When a new technology appears, society's reaction is rarely neutral. Lack of understanding does not produce only curiosity, it often produces mystification.

Such reactions are not new. They accompany the entire history of technological development.

In different eras, phenomena that today seem trivial were once perceived as destabilizing or even supernatural. Early mechanization was not viewed merely as technological progress; in certain environments it acquired almost demonic connotations. Machines were called "devilish," not because of what they objectively were, but because of what people did not understand about how they functioned.

Similarly, photography in its early phases provoked fears that are nearly unimaginable today. In some cultures it was believed that taking a photograph could capture part of a person's identity or "soul." The technical reproduction of an image was interpreted through a magical framework because its mechanism was not understood. In artistic contexts, the camera itself was long disputed as a legitimate creative medium, precisely because "the machine made the image," leading to the claim that authorship did not belong to the one operating it.

A similar pattern accompanied the emergence of the printing press. The mechanical reproduction of text was perceived as a threat to the authenticity of thought. If an idea could be infinitely replicated without the physical presence of its author, it raised the question of whether the work still belonged to the one who wrote it. The technology of reproduction was misinterpreted as a diminishment of authorship rather than as its technical mediator.

Music was no exception to this pattern. The introduction of electronic instruments, particularly the synthesizer, generated resistance based on the assumption that "the instrument produces the sound instead of the musician." Its use was considered less legitimate because the technology appeared to function as an autonomous generator rather than as a medium through which human intention shapes sound.

Even invisible natural forces, such as electricity, were at certain historical moments surrounded by mystification. What could not be directly perceived but only observed through its effects easily crossed the boundary between scientific explanation and symbolic interpretation.

These examples are not comparisons between technologies, they reveal a recurring structure of reaction.

When understanding is absent, imagination fills the gap.

In the contemporary context, a similar mechanism can be observed in the way artificial intelligence is perceived. Instead of being regarded as a tool - complex, yet still instrumental - it is often attributed qualities of autonomy, creative independence, or even ontological separation from the human being.

The claim that AI is something "beyond" humans, rather than an extension of human intention, arises from the same epistemological structure that once produced magical interpretations of technology.

In other words, lack of understanding produces mystification.

From this mystification emerges a displacement of authorship.

If the tool is perceived as superhuman, then the result begins to be attributed to it. The work ceases to be understood as the product of human idea, intention, and direction, and is instead interpreted as the product of the technology itself.

Within such a framework, the use of artificial intelligence leads to the conclusion that what has been created "does not belong" to the person who produced it, but to the system that was used.

Such attribution does not arise from the nature of the tool, but from the way it is perceived.

It is not ontological; it is an interpretative consequence of misunderstanding.

Historically speaking, such phases are temporary. As knowledge stabilizes, mystification recedes. What once appeared autonomous begins to be understood as instrumental. What was surrounded by symbolism becomes technically explainable.

The perception of artificial intelligence will not remain permanently mystified. As understanding of its mechanisms, limitations, and dependence on human input becomes more widely accessible, narratives about its alleged separateness will weaken.

Along with that process, the idea that authorship belongs to the tool will disappear.

AI will be regarded for what it functionally is: a medium through which an idea is materialized, not the source of the idea itself.

And like every technology before it, it will pass from mystification to demystification, from attributed autonomy to full recognition of its instrumental nature.

The F.T