If we look at the definition of "tool", AI definitely qualifies as a tool. So, then, why does it feel different? *Should* we consider it a tool?

## Tools Are Specific

Tools as we know them from the before-times™ serve a specific purpose. A camera is a tool that captures an image from light. A screwdriver is a tool that turns screws. Photoshop is a tool that manipulates bytes in visually interesting ways. You wouldn't use a screwdriver to take a picture, or photoshop to turn a screw.

AI differs in this way by offering the "one-stop shop" tool that can do it all - it can interface with all of your existing tools, decide which ones should be coordinated for a particular task, and execute. This is an important distinction from all other tools that I can think of.

## Tools Require Skill

This one is less of a global point, but still interesting I think. Tools require varying degrees of skill. Most people can pick up a screwdriver and intuitively figure out how to turn a screw; with a camera, it takes some degree of practice and study to produce good photos.

With AI, the premise is that you don't need skills. Sure, you need to be capable of basic communication; but, regardless of what you read on twitter, prompting isn't really a skill. Particularly as models improve, the 'quality' of your prompt will matter less and less.

## Tools Extend Our Abilities

Screwdrivers unlock an inhuman ability for us - the ability to turn a screw. Cameras unlock an inhuman ability - the ability to digitize a photo. Most interesting tools give us _new_ abilities that make the impossible, possible.

With AI, it seems different. Instead of giving us new superhuman abilities, we're attempting to give ourselves all of the _existing_ human abilities. That's pretty radically different from all other tools!

## OK so is AI a tool??

With the current definition? Yes.

Is it a perfect analogy for tools as they exist today? No.

Should we stop treating it that way? Probably.