Every generation reckons it is living through the biggest technological change in history. And from the perspective of that generation, they probably are. Imagine seeing the first controlled fire and realising the implications of that. There would have been the group that considered it witchcraft, and the crew who wanted to see what use these fires might be. There would have also been a bunch of founders trying to find a way to make a buck out of it. Whatever group those folks were in, as time passed, they would have realised that whatever a person believed about fire, they’d still have to deal with each other. Tribes and communities would still need to find ways to function regardless of a person's political beliefs about confined combustion. And the tribes that figured it out did OK out of it.
I work with a range of people. Some reckon synthetic thought is the mother of all evil, and they’ve got pretty valid reasons for that. Some have yard-glassed the Kool-Aid and are working with the bots for richer or poorer. There’s people like me, who will use a tool if it’s useful, but won’t take out ad space to confess love and adoration for it. None of these ways of being is fundamentally the best; it takes all types. I’ve never lost friends over their willingness (or not) to use a calculator, and I won’t lose any over any other type of technology use.
I don’t actually care where anyone sits on the spectrum of adaptation, as long as there’s some form of empathy and consideration for the ‘others’. I find it weird that something that (pretty much) only shows its face when there’s an internet connection can be so divisive. Horses for courses for sure; If you’re in a role that depends on you working with Synthetic Acumen, you will absolutely benefit from coming to terms with that (if you can). If someone isn’t convinced, it might be worth learning from them about why. Basic human decency still needs to exist no matter where you sit on the clanker spectrum.
Human adaptation to new technologies is a field of study that is pretty saturated. There’s a bunch of research (you can find it) outlining the cognitive difference between adapting to change because you want to, and adapting to it because you kinda have to. It doesn’t take much brainpower to figure out which of these humans do more willingly. So what does this mean for the way we interact with others in contexts where adapting to change is required? Just like back in the day, we’ll still need to find ways to function regardless of a person's beliefs. The thing that will push us all forward will be how we adapt as a community most humanely. Horses for courses, yes; but decency for all courses.