An Observational Record of Early Social Phenomena in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
These days, we hear remarks like these more and more often:
But is that really the case?
This essay is not written to judge or label anyone. In fact, it aims to do the opposite.
It is an attempt to calmly distinguish whether what we are witnessing is merely individual deviation, or an early signal of a broader social transformation.
Let us be clear from the outset.
The word “species” here does not refer to a biological species. No DNA has changed. Humans have not evolved into another life form.
And yet, there is a reason such a strong expression appears.
👉 Throughout history, entirely new types of humans have repeatedly emerged— people whose ways of thinking, cognitive structures, and modes of meaning-making differ qualitatively from what came before.
In social science and anthropology, such phenomena are often described as:
In this sense, “species” is not hyperbole. It is closer to a signal that “existing standards no longer fully explain what we are seeing.”
We have already encountered similar moments many times.
What is striking is that, each time, those who seemed “strange” appeared first, and society only later adjusted its structures.
At the beginning, it looked like an individual problem. In retrospect, it was an early sign of a civilizational shift.
Most technologies before AI existed outside of human thought.
AI is different.
Even at this very moment, AI:
👉 AI is less a tool than an environment for thought.
Those who remain within this environment for long periods cannot help but develop different patterns of thinking.
We are already encountering such individuals:
They are often labeled as:
But perhaps the question itself is wrong.
Are these truly “strange individuals”? Or are they expressions of a different cognitive structure produced by a new environment?
When societies fail to address this question properly, they tend to repeat the same pattern:
The result is usually confusion and unnecessary cost.
By contrast, when such phenomena are recognized early as signals of social transformation—and recorded and analyzed as such— education, institutions, and culture can transition far more smoothly.
This essay does not:
It holds onto a single question:
How is the human who thinks alongside AI similar to the past—and how is that human different?
And from there, a more fundamental question follows:
Will we dismiss this as mere “strangeness”, or will we record it as a signal of what comes next?
“People these days aren’t like they used to be.”
Remarkably, this sentence has existed in every era.
We often feel that the changes of our own time are unprecedented, but if we look back even slightly, we find the same words repeating again and again.
The crucial fact is this:
New technologies have always produced new human types first, and only afterward has society changed.
Before the invention of writing, human thought was centered on memory.
Knowledge was stored in the mind, and communities relied on oral transmission.
When writing emerged, some people began fixing their thoughts onto external media.
Reactions at the time:
👉 These claims are strikingly similar to what we hear about AI today.
Results:
All of these emerged on the foundation of the literate human.
They were not strange people. They were humans who adapted first to a new environment.
Before the printing press, knowledge belonged to authorities.
Books were rare, and interpretation was permitted only to the approved.
After printing spread, a different kind of person appeared.
Reactions at the time:
👉 “Thinking too much” is almost always the first label attached to a new human type.
Results:
The print human was not a danger. They became the foundation of a new society.
The Industrial Revolution transformed the structure of human thought.
To earlier generations, these people appeared as:
Yet without this human type, modern organizations, large-scale societies, and technological civilization could not have existed at all.
After the internet and smartphones, a generation emerged with entirely different cognitive patterns.
Societal reactions:
Yet this human type enabled:
The common structure running through all of this is clear:
👉 There has never been an exception.
The human type emerging in the age of AI is not a sudden mutation.
There is, however, one crucial difference.
AI does not merely change the speed of thought. It intervenes directly in the structure of thought itself.
That is why the transformation appears faster, deeper, and more chaotic.
The people appearing today are not “future humans.”
They are simply present-day humans who adapted earlier to the next environment.
History tells us:
In the previous essays, we established something important.
Humanity has already encountered new human types many times, and each time society adapted— not without confusion, but through structural change.
So the question becomes this:
Why does the transformation brought by AI feel uniquely more unsettling, more dangerous?
Why is it so difficult to dismiss it as just “another technology”?
The answer is surprisingly simple.
AI differs from all previous technologies in one crucial way: where it intervenes.
Writing, printing, machines, computers— all previous technologies shared a common trait.
Humans did the thinking. Technology merely assisted, stored, or accelerated it.
👉 The subject of thought was always the human.
As a result, no matter how much society changed, the structure of thinking itself evolved relatively slowly.
AI operates in a fundamentally different way.
AI does not only:
👉 AI is not involved in the result of thought, but directly in the process by which thought is formed.
From this moment on, technology becomes:
This is where a critical shift occurs.
In the latter case, people gradually begin to change.
👉 A recursive loop of thinking is formed.
The change here is not an increase in knowledge, but a reorganization of cognitive structure.
Among people who engage in long-term interaction with AI, certain patterns are frequently observed:
This does not mean:
👉 It simply means that the way thought is formed has changed.
The discomfort has a clear source.
Modern societies are designed around:
But AI-mediated thinking tends to be:
So society instinctively asks:
Historically, however, these have always been the wrong starting questions.
The AI-era transformation feels uniquely risky for three reasons:
👉 What is dangerous is not the people, but the fact that society is not yet prepared.
So we must ask differently.
And a more critical question remains:
If we fail to understand this phenomenon now, when—and in what form— will society be forced to pay the cost?
When a new human type begins to appear, the first question society almost always asks is the same.
“Isn’t that person… strange?”
This question is understandable. And yet, it is also the most dangerous one.
Because the moment this question is asked, society has already begun judging in the wrong direction.
Looking back at history, labeling people as “strange” has almost always led to one of two paths.
The interesting fact is this:
👉 The outcomes of these two choices have been almost identical.
Both paths ultimately resulted in social disorder.
Society often assumes:
But the core of a new human type is not individual personality.
It is environment and structure.
When the same technological environment, the same modes of interaction, and the same cognitive amplification conditions are repeated, similar cognitive structures continue to emerge.
👉 No matter how deeply individuals are analyzed, the phenomenon itself does not disappear.
Here, a crucial distinction must be made.
→ emotion enters
→ conflict escalates
→ society polarizes
→ this is not an emotional issue
→ it is an operational one
👉 Classification is not control. It is the minimum condition for preventing misjudgment.
The changes observed in people who engage in long-term interaction with AI are not mere differences in temperament.
These changes:
This is why society has reached a point where it must define new types, rather than problematizing individuals.
When judgment remains without classification, society tends to follow a predictable path:
Once this stage is reached:
👉 understanding becomes impossible, and response becomes costly.
The questions must change.
Only with these questions can society either offer support or receive it in return.
New human types have always appeared first as “strange people.”
The problem was never them. It was the absence of language and classification capable of explaining them.
The transformation of the AI era is no different.
What we must do now is not judge individuals, but record where this change comes from and where it may be heading.
The same person. The same way of thinking.
In some cases, it becomes an asset to society. In others, it becomes a source of disorder.
Where does this difference come from?
The answer is simpler than it seems.
👉 The presence or absence of analysis and classification.
One of the most common mistakes societies make is this:
“This person is dangerous.” “This person is beneficial.”
Historically, however, what was dangerous or beneficial was never the person themselves, but the structure of influence in which that person was placed.
Even with the same cognitive structure:
👉 Influence is not a matter of personality, but of structure.
Across both past and present, the conditions under which new human types became medicine were strikingly similar.
Common conditions:
Under these conditions, new ways of thinking:
👉 That is why they became medicine.
The path toward poison is just as clear.
Common conditions:
What follows:
👉 This is not a personal failure. It is the result of a societal failure in processing.
In the age of AI, this dividing line is far steeper.
In other words, thought left unanalyzed can amplify rapidly along the time axis.
What once took decades now happens within years— sometimes within months.
Many episodes of social disorder began with the same question:
“It’s a minority—do we really need to care?”
This question is dangerous because:
individuals may be few, but types are reproducible.
When the environment is the same:
emerge again and again.
👉 The issue is never the number of people, but the reproducibility of the pattern.
The analysis discussed here is not:
Analysis means:
👉 Even in order to do nothing, one must first understand.
New human types are not inherently poison or medicine to society.
With analysis and language, they become medicine.
With neglect and stigma, they become poison.
The real danger of the AI era lies not in new kinds of people, but in society’s lack of preparedness to understand and engage with them.
Every social transformation contains a reversible phase and an irreversible one.
The problem is that most societies recognize the seriousness of the situation only after they have crossed that boundary.
The emergence of new human types in the age of AI is no exception.
People often say:
“One day, the problem suddenly exploded.”
But in reality, that is almost never the case.
A critical threshold forms quietly, through accumulation.
👉 A threshold is not an event. It is a process.
When society has already crossed the threshold, several signs tend to appear simultaneously.
👉 Words like “strange” or “dangerous” are repeated without clarification.
Nuanced interpretations disappear.
Instead:
👉 The only options left are suppression or neglect.
After the critical point is crossed, even the most rational analysis fails to function.
The reason is simple.
👉 Society no longer operates on “what is true,” but on “who is on our side.”
Once this stage is reached, responses are always costly and filled with side effects.
In the age of AI, this entire process is compressed.
What once took 20 to 30 years of accumulation now occurs within 2 to 5 years.
👉 The window of response is extremely short.
Historically, the most dangerous phrase has always been the same.
The more this sentiment is repeated:
And eventually, someone says:
“It has already grown too large.”
At that point, there are no real options left.
Certain actions are possible only before the point of no return.
These may appear excessive in the early stages, but later, they prove to be the least costly choices.
Social disorder surrounding new human types is not the result of sudden events.
It is the accumulated cost of delayed analysis.
Before the threshold, societies have many options.
After crossing it, control is often the only one left.
The true risk of the AI era lies not in people, but in timing.
Whenever a new human type appeared, societies repeatedly found themselves standing at the same crossroads.
The striking fact is this:
Historically, both choices have almost always failed.
The way humanity actually survived was always a third option, somewhere in between.
Results:
👉 Suppression never eliminated ideas. It only ensured their return in stronger forms.
Results:
👉 Neglect was not freedom. It provided a stage and an amplifier.
Societies that succeeded historically made a different choice.
They isolated without excluding, and observed without stigmatizing.
Past societies created intermediate spaces so that new forms of thought would not immediately destabilize the mainstream.
👉 Buffer zones were not mechanisms of control. They were mechanisms of speed regulation.
Successful societies did not document “strange individuals.”
Instead, they recorded:
As a result:
👉 Documentation functioned as a mechanism for delaying fear.
Past societies understood something instinctively:
When there is no name, fear grows.
So they created neutral language:
Once language existed:
This is perhaps the most important commonality.
Past societies did not:
Instead, they changed:
Because new human types were not merely objects of discipline, but potential standards for the next generation.
The response required in the age of AI is strikingly similar to the past.
Instead:
👉 This is not about “managing” new human types, but about buffering society so it does not fracture.
Humanity has never evolved by eliminating new human types.
Only through understanding, documentation, and education has it moved to the next stage.
The age of AI is no exception.
At the end of this series, we return to the most practical question.
After understanding all of these changes, what should we actually do?
We do not need grand solutions.
History has repeatedly proven the opposite.
👉 Excessive intervention has failed. Doing nothing has also failed.
One option remains: minimal intervention, maximum understanding.
The first perspective we must abandon is this:
This approach has always come too late and always produced side effects.
New human types in the age of AI are not targets for suppression.
They are products of environmental change.
When the environment changes:
👉 This is not a moral issue. It is an operational one.
Instead:
👉 The less something is hidden, the less it becomes exaggerated.
Instead:
👉 Classification is not control. It is a safeguard against misjudgment.
This is not the stage for final answers.
Instead:
👉 The most valuable materials later will be the earliest records.
The most important response is not law or regulation.
👉 The more confused adults are, the more prepared children must be.
Instead:
👉 Societies, too, need brakes.
This series was not written:
It has only one purpose:
“So that we do not regret later, let us record now.”
History always says:
But in truth, in most cases:
We did not create new humans.
We have simply entered an era in which new humans have become visible.
We may:
But the consequences of those choices have always been borne by society.
The new “species” of the AI age is not a story of the future.
It is already present.
Whether this transformation becomes:
👉 depends on the language we create now, the records we preserve, and the speed at which we respond.
The question is no longer abstract.
It is not a story about a distant future.
Where do you stand?
Are you part of that new “species”?
Are you among those who analyze it?
Or are you among those who look away, insisting that nothing is really happening?
This question does not demand a decision.
We are already standing somewhere.
Transformations in the age of AI do not begin with declarations.
They do not start with laws, institutions, or dramatic events.
As always, they begin with changes in human thought.
The way questions are asked shifts.
The language used to organize thought changes.
The sense of what feels like “me” slowly begins to move.
And then, one day, looking back, we realize that society is already standing somewhere else.
👉 Has the change begun?
No. It is already underway.
A critical threshold does not arrive with warning sirens.
It does not appear on the front page of a newspaper.
It always approaches in familiar phrases:
The more these words are repeated, the fewer choices remain.
And eventually, society reaches a point where it can no longer understand— only control.
History has always recorded that moment too late.
This series was not written to provide answers.
It was written to leave a question behind.
Are you already thinking alongside AI?
Are you observing and analyzing the transformation?
Or are you turning away, unsettled by what you sense?
None of these positions is wrong.
But one thing is certain.
Ignoring change has always been the most expensive choice.
The question is not whether a new “species” will appear in the age of AI.
The question is when we choose to recognize it.
The earlier that recognition comes, the more smoothly societies have transitioned.
The later it arrives, the greater the confusion has always been.
If you have read this far, you are no longer among those who ignore it.
Perhaps you stand among those who analyze.
Perhaps you are already within the transformation itself.
Either position is acceptable.
What matters is this:
The fact that this question has been recorded at all is itself proof that the change is already underway.
The age of AI has not yet delivered its conclusion.
It is simply asking us to respond.
This series does not claim answers.
It merely seeks to leave a question behind— before it is too late.