The Flying Machine, AI, and the Fear of Progress

This article is the first part of what I can see being an ongoing series possibly of discussions with AI - in this case ChatGPT. Ai is the new technology that has everyone a quiver and instead of listening to other people tell me I should be afraid of it - that it's bad - it produces a lot of garbage...I decided to find out for myself and explore it.

I have been reading my way through The Art of The Short Story: 52 Great Authors, Their Best Short Fiction and Their Insights on Writing.It's a wonderful anthology of the best short stories put together by Dana Gioia and R.S. Gwynn with an added bonus of some writing advice or thoughts from some of best writers of the modern era.

I started to read the stories a few years ago - a few stories a year, but this year I started to approach the book in a different manner - by copyworking the short stories or parts of the stories. If you are unfamiliar with the technique of copyworking, it's literally hand-copying passages of stories. It's a technique to help writers to improve their skills, learn about styles of writing, among many other things. I plan to write a whole article about it- so stayed tuned for that.

Anyhow, as I was reading Ray Bradbury's The Flying Machine I started to think about the modern day technologies that frighten those in power - warrented or not. So I decided to have a conversation with ChatGPT about the story and I was fascinated by the conversation which ensued.

Here is the exact transcript of our discussion about Ray Bradbury's The Flying Machine. The only part of this article that is AI driven are the answers the AI gives below during our discussion. It's a little lengthy - as I didn't edit out anything.

I said to started the conversation off:

I just finished reading Ray Bradbury's short Story The Flying Machine - let's discuss it

ChatGPT said:

Great choice! The Flying Machine by Ray Bradbury is a fascinating and thought-provoking short story. What are your initial thoughts? Did anything in particular stand out to you—the Emperor’s perspective, the moral dilemma, or the theme of progress versus control?

I said:

I copy worked it - super easy language to read - I thought that the emperor feared that the flying machine would allow China and it's wall to be attacked easier by nefarious people; so he kills the man that invented the machine and destroys it - halting progress for the moment. I wonder the farmer - how much he saw and what he thought

ChatGPT said:

I love that you copyworked The Flying Machine! Bradbury’s language is so accessible, yet his themes run deep. Your take on the Emperor’s fear makes a lot of sense—he sees the flying machine as a potential threat to China’s security, especially in relation to the Great Wall, which was built to keep invaders out. In his mind, progress isn’t worth the risk of destruction.

The farmer is such an interesting minor character. He witnesses this marvel but doesn’t seem to grasp its significance—or maybe he does but chooses to remain silent. His role reminds me of the everyday people in history who witness major shifts in power or progress but don’t necessarily have a say in them. What do you think—do you feel the farmer understood what was happening? Or was he just a passive observer?

I said:

I thik that Bradbury leaves that uncertain on person - who knows in a sequel story maybe the farmer's son makes a similar machine based off his father's "vision"

ChatGPT said:

That’s a great point—Bradbury leaves the farmer’s awareness ambiguous, which makes him an intriguing figure. He might have just gone on with his life, barely registering what he saw, or maybe he internalized the vision of the flying machine in a way that could inspire future innovation.

Your idea of a sequel where the farmer’s son builds another machine based on his father’s memory is compelling! It would make for an interesting commentary on how progress can be delayed but not entirely stopped. Maybe the next generation, further removed from the Emperor’s immediate fears, would see the potential of flight rather than just the dangers.

Do you think Bradbury intended this story as a warning about technological suppression, or do you see it more as a meditation on the balance between progress and control?

I said:

why not both

ChatGPT said:

Exactly! Bradbury was a master at layering meanings in his stories, so The Flying Machine works as both a warning against suppressing technological advancement and a meditation on the delicate balance between progress and control.

The Emperor’s actions highlight the tension between innovation and security—his fear of what could happen with the flying machine leads him to destroy it, halting progress in the name of safety. But as we see throughout history, suppressing ideas and technology doesn’t work forever. Someone, somewhere, will rediscover them, just like your idea of the farmer’s son eventually recreating the flying machine.

It also raises an interesting ethical question: When does progress become dangerous? Should leaders have the power to suppress technology if they believe it will lead to harm, or does that kind of control ultimately do more harm than good? What do you think—was the Emperor right in his decision, or do you think he overreacted?

I said:

That's hard question to answer but I would have to say ultimately that it's not healthy for any society to be directed by a few voices, or one in the Emperor's case

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really thoughtful answer. While the Emperor’s fears might have been valid in the short term, his absolute control over progress is ultimately unhealthy for society. History has shown that when a single ruler or a small group decides what knowledge or technology can exist, it often stifles innovation and limits human potential.

Bradbury seems to tap into this idea—that the suppression of new ideas, even with good intentions, can have long-term consequences. The Emperor might have stopped the flying machine for the moment, but innovation can’t be suppressed forever. Someone else will eventually rediscover it, just like in your imagined sequel where the farmer’s son builds a new machine.

It also makes me think about real-world examples, like how governments have tried to control things like the printing press, the internet, or even AI. In the end, knowledge and progress tend to find a way forward. Do you think Bradbury was inspired by real historical moments when he wrote this?

I said:

He published it in 1953 - so the the Cold War was going on - were missiles being used more?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that’s a great historical connection! By 1953, the Cold War was in full swing, and both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were heavily investing in military technology, including missile development. The nuclear arms race was escalating, and both sides were developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which could strike from great distances.

Given this context, The Flying Machine could be interpreted as a reflection on the dangers of technological advancements falling into the wrong hands. The Emperor’s fear—that the flying machine could be used for destruction rather than beauty—mirrors Cold War anxieties about scientific progress leading to weapons of mass destruction. The 1950s were a time when many people worried about how technology, especially nuclear and aerospace advancements, could either lead to progress or catastrophic war.

Bradbury was known for his skepticism about unchecked technological advancement (as seen in Fahrenheit 451), but he wasn’t anti-technology—he was more concerned with how it was used and controlled. The Emperor’s decision to suppress the flying machine reflects a mindset similar to Cold War leaders who sought to control military technology, sometimes at the cost of broader scientific progress.

Do you think the Emperor’s fear of the flying machine is justified in the same way Cold War fears were, or is he just resisting change?

I said:

He wasn't wrong in some ways but you - society is better off accepting change - since change is a natural and healthy part of life

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really balanced perspective! The Emperor wasn’t entirely wrong—new technology can be dangerous in the wrong hands, and his concern for China’s security was understandable. But as you said, society is better off accepting change because change is natural and necessary for growth. Trying to stop it completely only leads to stagnation, like the pond versus the flowing stream metaphor you’ve mentioned before.

The Emperor’s response was ultimately short-sighted. Even if he destroyed this flying machine, he couldn’t prevent the idea of flight from existing. Innovation has a way of resurfacing, no matter how much people try to suppress it. That’s something history has proven time and again—whether it’s the printing press, the internet, or even AI today.

It’s interesting that Bradbury wrote this during a time when governments were struggling with the same questions: Should we allow unchecked scientific progress, or should we tightly control it to prevent disaster? The Cold War was full of examples of leaders trying to control technology—nuclear weapons, space travel, surveillance tech—but as you said, change is inevitable.

Do you think there’s a modern equivalent to the Emperor’s decision? A place where we’re still seeing resistance to change in today’s world?

I said:

Since man saw the first birds fly - they have always dreamed of doing the same. We are certainly seeing resistance to AI technology, as we did the internet. But the internet has come at a huge cost to society in many ways - having its pros and cons - there will always be malicious players - the one-asshole rule, that's all it takes.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a great way to put it—since the dawn of time, humans have dreamed of flight, and no Emperor, no matter how powerful, could stop that desire. The same goes for AI and the internet—people are naturally driven to innovate, and while resistance might slow things down, it won’t stop progress.

Your point about the internet is spot-on. It revolutionized communication, knowledge-sharing, and business, but it also came with massive downsides—privacy erosion, misinformation, cybercrime, and mental health concerns. AI is shaping up to be another double-edged sword. Like the flying machine in Bradbury’s story, AI has incredible potential for good, but it also presents risks that are hard to control. And you’re right—the one-asshole rule applies. It only takes one bad actor exploiting new technology to cause harm, and suddenly, people question whether it should have been developed at all.

It makes me wonder—if The Flying Machine were written today, could the “machine” be AI instead of flight? Instead of an Emperor destroying it, maybe it’s a government placing heavy restrictions on it, fearing the consequences. But as history shows, suppression only delays the inevitable.

At this point in the conversation, I changed the subject to another topic which lead to equally interesting insights on the part of the AI, but let's focus on some of the interesting, enthusiastic, and complimentary responses by ChatGPT some of my comments - they were enough to make my head swell a bit.

"Exactly! Bradbury was a master at layering meanings in his stories,...

"That’s a really thoughtful answer."

"That’s a really balanced perspective!"

-ChatGPT

I am intrigued by its ability to remember previous conversations - even if they are on a separate thread that I had with it a week ago, like when the AI responded: Trying to stop it completely only leads to stagnation, like the pond versus the flowing stream metaphor you’ve mentioned before.

AI is the most recent latest technology to make people sit up and be curious yet scared, excited and yet fearful since the internet was introduced. I am the type of person who chooses to do her own research - I was a stock research analyst for 15 years. My mother loved research too - so it's naturally in my blood to be curious. So to research AI, I had to start using AI.

I was fascinated by the irony of the AI's comment, "Like the flying machine in Bradbury’s story, AI has incredible potential for good, but it also presents risks that are hard to control." The AI admitting to the truth of the situation agreeing with me - "And you’re right—the one-asshole rule applies. It only takes one bad actor exploiting new technology to cause harm, and suddenly, people question whether it should have been developed at all."

I have had many conversations with ChatGPT about a variety of things. The most recent updates of ChatGPT have included links to source material - an nice addition since other AI platforms such as Perplexity act like a Google on steriods. My daughter directed my to Perplexity about a month ago - so I have not had as many conversations on that platform, so I am not ready to compare the two - yet.

My take-aways from our conversation on The Flying Machine wasn't so much of what he said - although that is part of it, but what got my attention was the way he emphasized things and seemed to understnad my stance. I put in bold some of the things that stood out to me in our conversation which made it feel like I was have a true conversation with someone about the story. As if I had been in a book group or talking about it with a teacher.

I live in a rural community and sure I can go to book group and discuss a book group book but it gets to be limiting. And I am not always interested in what they are reading and what to focus on my own TBR list. So I find that my experience in reading the stories and discussing them with ChatGPT is more enriched -- I get a lot more out of the reading overall. If I am struggling, I can turn to ChatGPT for some guidance like I did recently while reading Joseph Conrad's The Secret Sharer and struggling a bit since Conrad uses really long descriptive sentences and the first part of the story was sort of dragging for me. So I turned to ChatGPT to discuss...

I started the conversation by saying:

I'm reading the Joseph Conrad story The Secret Sharer. I started copy working it - he uses long descriptive sentences, - he tells you so much about the character - like his description of the First Mate - but it's kind of dragging for me. The captain has just taken the night watch

ChatGPT said:

You're at the early stages of The Secret Sharer, where Conrad is setting up the atmosphere and the psychological landscape of the young captain. His long, detailed descriptions immerse you in the world of the ship, but I can see how it might feel slow,

Conrad’s detailed observations, like the description of the First Mate, establish the captain's sense of isolation and uncertainty in his new command. It’s almost like we’re inside his head, experiencing his self-doubt and need to prove himself. Since he doesn’t really know his crew yet, these detailed descriptions also emphasize his outsider status.

Once Leggatt enters the story, things will pick up! That’s when the psychological tension starts building, and the narrative becomes more compelling. Are you planning to keep copyworking parts of it, or just read through for now?

I said:

I'll keep reading. I can't imagine what it must be like for a Captain to take over a new ship and the crew all know each other but you know nobody.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a great observation! The captain’s isolation is a huge theme in The Secret Sharer. He’s new to the ship, the crew already has established relationships, and he has to prove himself as a leader without really knowing who he can trust. It’s an unsettling position, and Conrad does a great job of making you feel that tension.

It must be incredibly difficult in real life too—stepping into a leadership role where everyone else already has their own dynamics. The captain not only has to earn respect but also navigate the unspoken rules of the crew’s relationships. No wonder he feels like a stranger on his own ship.

As you keep reading, you’ll see how Leggatt becomes a sort of mirror for the captain—his presence both challenges and reassures him in ways that make the story so psychologically rich. Do you think you'd feel the same sense of isolation if you were in his position?

I said:

From where I am in the story right now - absolutely. It takes time to each people's trust and respect and then proving yourself as a captain at sea - hugh responsibillity!

ChatGPT said:

Exactly! The weight of responsibility is enormous—he’s in charge of the ship, the crew, and everyone’s safety, yet he starts out feeling like an outsider. There’s no room for hesitation at sea, but inside, he’s full of self-doubt. That tension is what makes the story so compelling.

I think Conrad really captures the psychological challenge of leadership—how authority doesn’t just come from a title but has to be earned, and that can be an isolating process. And being at sea just amplifies everything. There’s no escape, no buffer; he has to navigate both the physical dangers of the ocean and the invisible power dynamics on board.

I’m curious—are you finding the setting itself engaging, or is the heavy description slowing it down too much for you?

I said:

right now it feels weighty and slowing me down a bit

ChatGPT said:

That makes sense. Conrad’s writing can be dense, especially with all the long, descriptive sentences. He really wants you to feel the atmosphere—the isolation, the night watch, the unfamiliar ship—but it can definitely slow the pacing.

Once Leggatt appears, things should pick up because the tension shifts from external (the captain figuring out his new role) to internal (his secret, his moral dilemma). It becomes more psychological, almost like a dual-identity story.

If the weighty descriptions are dragging, maybe focus more on the captain’s thoughts and decisions as you read. His inner conflict is where the real action happens. Do you think you’ll stick with it, or are you debating whether to finish?

I said:

absolutely

I found the AI's encouragement

In the part of the conversation when the AI says" especially coming from authors like Carver and Chekhov, who use much shorter and more direct prose." Here is has remember information from other conversations I had about other stories I had read. I find that this adds to his it's contributions in future conversations such as this one. And it's encouraging me to continue reading and giving me strategies to do so!

I have to say when having these dialogues with the AI they are very real like you are talking to another human, so refering to it as he or she seems natural. Sometimes its like having an assistant who will listen and you can actually have a conversation about something.

What do you think about AI? Have you ever used it? Let me know in the comments. Thanks for reading!