The Problem Isn’t AI… Hear Me Out

Before we talk about artificial intelligence, I want to talk about something much simpler.

Chairs.

Photo by Roel Dierckens on Unsplash

We use them every day. We barely think about them. They’re just there. But the chair, as ordinary as it feels, didn’t suddenly appear one day fully formed.

If you go looking for who invented the chair, you quickly run into a problem. There isn’t a single answer. Historians point to ancient Egypt, where chairs were symbols of power and status as early as 2680 BC. Later, Greek and Roman cultures adapted them. During the Renaissance, chairs became more common, reflecting changes in craftsmanship, materials, and social structure. Even modern designers like Charles and Ray Eames didn’t invent the chair so much as redefine it for their time.

As several authors point out, including those writing for Wikipedia and design history sites like Enkledesigns, the chair is a collective creation. It evolved. It adapted. It changed based on human needs.

Now let’s narrow that focus.

The folding chair.

Photo by Declan Sun on Unsplash

If you do a quick search, you’ll likely see Nathaniel Alexander credited with inventing the folding chair in 1911. And that’s not wrong. Alexander did patent a folding chair design, one that even included a book rest, making it especially useful for schools, churches, and auditoriums. ThoughtCo and Sciencing both discuss his contribution in detail.

But here’s the thing.

As Elias Nash explains in his Sciencing article, folding chairs existed long before that patent. Versions of collapsible chairs have been found in ancient civilizations, where they were symbols of authority rather than practical seating. Alexander didn’t invent the idea. He refined it. He adapted it. He made it work for a specific context and time.

Sound familiar?

Then there’s the part of the story that feels almost ridiculous at first.

Professional wrestling.

According to articles from WhatCulture and other wrestling historians, the folding chair found its way into wrestling in the 1940s, with Wild Bill Curry often cited as one of the first wrestlers to use it effectively. Later, the modern steel folding chair, mass produced after designs by Fredric Arnold in the late 1940s and 1950s, became synonymous with wrestling spectacle. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the folding chair wasn’t furniture anymore. It was a weapon. A symbol. A storytelling tool.

Same object. Completely different use.

So let me ask you something.

Can you see where I’m headed with this?

Because the problem was never the chair.

Something can be invented with a clear purpose, but the real issue is what we decide to do with it afterward. A chair exists so we can sit. A folding chair exists to make that easier, more flexible, more accessible. The moment it becomes something else, especially something harmful, the object itself hasn’t changed. The intent has.

That’s where my concern lies.

AI really isn’t the problem. The users are.

AI is a tool. And honestly, it can be a very good one. I use it when I write. I run my work through it for spelling. I check flow. Sometimes it helps me see a sentence more clearly or smooth out something that feels clunky. Used that way, AI is supportive. It doesn’t replace thinking. It sharpens it.

But we also have to be honest.

There are people using AI in ways that are careless at best and harmful at worst. Entire articles generated without thought. Websites filled with AI produced content meant to mislead. Fake news written faster than it can be fact checked. That misuse is real, and ignoring it doesn’t help anyone.

Still, disliking misuse does not mean hating the tool itself.

The problem has never been AI existing. The problem is how people choose to use it.

And this is where the chair comes back into the conversation.

A folding chair is useful. It’s practical. It’s been around for years because it solves a real need. But when it’s used as a weapon, the chair didn’t suddenly become evil. It was taken out of context and used in a way it was never meant to be used.

AI works the same way.

It isn’t dangerous by default. It becomes dangerous when it’s stripped of intention, responsibility, and ethics. When it replaces thinking instead of supporting it. When speed matters more than truth.

That distinction matters. Especially in education.

Because if we treat AI as the villain, we miss the real issue entirely. Tools don’t make choices. People do.

And that’s the conversation we actually need to be having.

So What Now?

If we’re being honest, we already know the problem.

AI isn’t inherently bad. The issue has always been how it’s used. And that means the next step doesn’t start with bans or panic. It starts with responsibility.

Us as users.

One of the simplest things we can do is stop rewarding content that adds nothing. If we’re creating what people now call “AI slop,” or if we’re consuming it without thinking, we’re teaching the algorithm that this is what we want.

And algorithms listen.

When I see a video and it’s clearly AI generated, I pause. I look at it. I don’t react emotionally. I ask myself, is this actually adding value? If the answer is no, I don’t like it. If anything, I do the opposite. On platforms like YouTube, that’s easy. I can tell the system, this isn’t for me.

I’ve noticed something interesting there. Many of those AI generated videos sit at ten likes. Sometimes fewer. That tells me people are paying attention. They’re quietly pushing back. They’re choosing not to amplify content that feels hollow or misleading.

Other platforms make this harder.

On TikTok, there’s no clear “unlike.” You can mark something as not interested, but it takes more effort, and AI generated content seems to thrive there. It circulates easily. It blends in. It gets rewarded simply because it exists.

So I make a choice.

If a platform becomes a place where low effort AI content dominates and there’s no meaningful way to push back, I stop supporting it. I scroll less. I disengage. I don’t feed the machine. That’s part of responsibility too.

This isn’t about being anti AI. It’s about being intentional.

We analyze what we see. We question what we consume. We decide what deserves attention. Whether we’re teachers, students, creators, or just people scrolling after a long day, we all shape the ecosystem in small ways.

That folding chair still works because we use it for what it was meant to do.

AI can work the same way.

It can support creativity, learning, and problem solving if we use it wisely. But if we turn it into noise, manipulation, or shortcuts that replace thinking, that’s on us.

The problem was never the chair.
And it was never AI.

The real question is whether we’re willing to be responsible users of the tools we’ve been given.

---

References

Bellis, Mary. “Nathaniel Alexander, Inventor of a Folding Chair.” ThoughtCo.

https://www.thoughtco.com/nathaniel-alexander-folding-chair-4074172

“Folding Chair.” Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_chair

“Who Invented the Folding Chair?” Blossom Furnishings.

https://blossomfurnishings.com/who-invented-the-folding-chair/

“The Origins of Wrestling’s Favorite Foreign Objects.” WhatCulture.

https://whatculture.com/wwe/the-origins-of-wrestling-s-6-favourite-foreign-objects

---

Final Note

If you’ve made it this far, thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to read this.

This is my first article of 2026, and I won’t lie, it took some work to get here. A lot has been happening in my life, and I’m trying to get more organized and more intentional with what I create. I really want to keep this Substack going, but I also want the articles to be thoughtful, meaningful, and worth your time.

Last year, I wrote a lot because many of those posts were ideas I had been sitting on for a while. Some of them were originally meant to be videos. I eventually had to be honest with myself. I don’t have the time or energy right now for video editing or production. Writing lets the content exist in a way that’s accessible, searchable, and always there. And honestly, I think this is the right place for it.

I’m happy to be here. I’m happy to see people doing well on Substack. I don’t see this ever becoming something I monetize. This space is more about having somewhere to think out loud, reflect, and share ideas as they come together. And I’m grateful that you’re here for that.

If you’d like to subscribe or share this article, please feel free to do so. This one took about two weeks to write. I started the year saying I wanted to write more, then hyper focused on getting this piece right, connecting the ideas, and making sure it actually made sense.

Looking ahead, one of my goals is to keep building out the Grammar Through Video Games section. I’d like to create worksheets to go along with those posts, so teachers and English learners can practice the ideas a bit more. Simple sentence work, tied to the video game examples already discussed. Practical, usable, and hopefully helpful.

That’s where I’m headed.

Thanks again for reading and for being part of this space.

— Prof. Rock