The Emperor’s New Clothes
When the crowd is busy admiring the outfit, someone still has to be willing to say what they actually see.
Dr. Cory B. Scott
A Story About Doubt, Not Clothes
I have known the story of the emperor's new clothes since I was a child, and for most of that time I assumed it was a story about vanity. A vain ruler. Two clever swindlers. A crowd too polite, or too frightened, to say what was obvious.
I no longer think that is what the story is about. I think it is a story about invisible doubt.
The emperor was not really the problem. The swindlers were not really the problem either. The problem was the crowd. Every person standing along that street looked around, saw everyone else nodding and admiring, and made the same quiet calculation. It is safer to go along with what everyone else appears to believe than to be the first person to say, "I do not see anything."
Nobody wanted to be the fool. So an entire town agreed, silently and individually, to doubt themselves instead of the obvious thing in front of them.
A Familiar Kind of Silence
I have been wondering if we are doing something similar with artificial intelligence.
Not because AI lacks value. I use it every day, and I have said as much in this newsletter more than once. But because we have become so fascinated by what AI can produce that we are forgetting to ask a harder question. What is it producing in us?
Those are two very different conversations, and lately I think we keep having the first one when we should be having the second.
I keep coming back to a story that made the rounds not long ago. A gifted author, well regarded, with a career built over years, was accused of using AI to write part of a manuscript. Not proven. Accused. Whether the accusation was even true is almost beside the point, because of what happened next.
Publishers grew cautious. Readers turned skeptical. People arrived at judgment before they had agreed on what "using AI" actually meant, or what portion of it, or for what purpose. The conversation moved from curiosity to condemnation faster than anyone bothered to check the facts.
For heaven's sake. We are talking about a tool.
What a Tool Cannot Manufacture
A great author possesses things AI does not have and cannot generate. Imagination. Lived experience. Judgment earned through years of paying attention. Emotional insight that comes from having actually felt something. A voice that is unmistakably theirs and no one else's.
Software cannot manufacture any of that. But it can amplify it.
Imagine what a serious novelist could do with an assistant that never got tired of the research, never lost track of a continuity detail across eight hundred pages, never minded being asked to help push through a stalled chapter. Imagine stronger books, finished sooner, written by an author whose voice never stopped being their own. Maybe we would even get the last of a certain fantasy series before the ending arrives by other means.
Here is the part that bothers me most. Many of the loudest critics of AI-assisted writing already use AI themselves. They use it to draft emails, summarize meetings, brainstorm proposals, and polish reports. Nobody accuses them of anything.
But the moment an artist uses the same technology to amplify their own creativity, the word "cheating" appears. That is not a consistent standard. That is hypocrisy wearing the costume of principle.
Talent Is Still the Price of Admission
No one without talent can simply ask a machine to produce a great novel and walk away with one. Great stories still require vision. They still require taste, restraint, and thousands of small creative decisions that only a human being with real judgment can make. AI does not replace the artist. It magnifies whatever the artist already brings to the page.
And this is not the first time a new tool has frightened people into forgetting that.
Every transformative technology, from the printing press to photography, from the calculator to the word processor, was greeted the same way when it first arrived. People worried the tool would hollow out the craft. Every time, the craft evolved instead. I have no reason to believe artificial intelligence will be the exception.
The real question in front of us is not whether talented people should use AI. The real question is whether we will let fear punish innovation before we have taken the time to actually understand it.
Try This This Week
A small experiment, before the next time you feel the urge to judge someone else's use of AI, or defend your own.
1. Think of one piece of work, yours or someone else’s, that made you wonder "did AI do this?"
2. Write down what actually bothered you about that question. Be specific.
3. Ask whether the real concern is honesty, or whether it is discomfort with a tool you have not fully made peace with yet.
4. Name one thing about that work that no AI system could have produced on its own — a piece of judgment, a lived detail, a choice that required taste.
5. Decide, honestly, whether your standard for "acceptable AI use" is the same one you apply to your own daily habits.
One Idea to Remember
The Emperor's New Clothes was never really about clothing. It was about a crowd that doubted itself instead of trusting what it plainly saw, because agreement felt safer than honesty.
We are at risk of the same thing with artificial intelligence. Not because the technology has no value, but because our fascination with what it produces is crowding out the harder question of what it is producing in us. A tool does not replace talent, vision, or judgment. It magnifies whatever a person already brings to the work. The failure was never in the tool. It has always been in the crowd's willingness to stay quiet.
The Conversation
Cory and Beacon take this essay apart — where it holds, where it doesn't, and what he left out. About 20 minutes.
Watch on YouTube → youtube.com/channel/UCQoKbmVrWUdQfxRKCsJ33Dw
Listen as a podcast → Spotify
Same conversation either way.
Continue the climb, the next Pink dot will be waiting for you when you are ready.Continue the Journey
