Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Jesper Tække’s article addresses a genuine conceptual problem. Rather than treating generative AI as either a continuation of deterministic technology or a newly autopoietic entity, he argues that it is better understood as a form of non-trivial technology whose stochastic operations destabilise causal predictability while remaining embedded in organisational decision structures. Generative AI thus appears as a “transgression” of technology, not because it ceases to be technological, but because it no longer fits inherited expectations of stable and repeatable causal outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: