The AI is neither threat nor a miracle: it imposes a change of posture. Show, share, tame, to make it a human and collective lever rather than a dogma or a fear.
“The technology is neither good nor bad in itself, it is”, already wrote at the edge of the 80s the philosopher Jacques Ellul. By this maxim, he invited everyone to think differently. To consider technology as a variable rather than an Eldorado or a demon. 2025, advent of generative artificial intelligence. Perhaps this Ellul maxim has never been so topical. The AI is there, progressing every day, full of promises for the future of what it can allow to achieve. Business leaders are not mistaken. They cultivate for this one a certain appetite that goes growing. Appeture in what it facilitates and multiplies possible and essential productivity gains in the economic battle. Apperture also in what she comes to handle with her positive representations of modernity. The CEO Survey 2025 of PWC has just objectified it with figures since there are 62% to think that AI is a key investment for the future of their companies.
Faced with this, two attitudes are possible. That, natural and primary in the first sense of the term, that is to say logical, of fear. “The AI will do my job and I would no longer exist”. Natural fears often maintained by the media presentation of technologies where humans disappears or rather becomes a victim of technology. Conversely, the other posture also maintained by fellow media presentations, consists in thinking that AI will solve all problems and above all embodies the future alone. As often, the path is at the crossroads of these two approaches. In lucid optimism trusts as much as awareness of dangers.
As in the major previous transformations (printing, steam engine, railway, internet), wanting to calculate knowledge, methods or pre -existing processes thinking that it is the technology to adapt will be late, or worse will lose the thread of innovation and therefore the economic model.
With AI, it is advisable to get out of the habits. Not to be confined in a form of descending knowledge which asserts the truths on the way it should be used. On the contrary, several experiences demonstrate that it is not a question of “training” the employees at AI but of “showing” them the AI. So that they appropriate its operating methods, first. Let them then use it, let them finally tame it before being able to “show” its possibilities to other employees. In a form of sharing chain that demonstrates one thing: to draw the substantial marrow from this new technology, there is a need for humans. Artificial intelligence, real humanism could be said in a form of maxim. As if AI forced organizations, teams and managers to recreate communities of interest around a new working tool. As if, in some ways, technology (in this case AI) far from being a cold monster or a magic innovation, simply made it possible to reinvest people.
Rather than saying. Tame rather than fear. Share rather than teach. So many new approaches that make it possible to make the major technological turn that constitutes the advent of AI a collective project as much as a new way of considering the common business project.
Utopian? Maybe. Necessary, certainly. Without this, then will emerge the central question which underlies all the questions around the AI; That of Blade Runner, what place for humans among all the tools he invented?
