On Pee-wee Herman, Hulk Hogan, and the thing nobody's willing to say out loud.
Paul Reubens died in the summer of 2023 and the obituary writers panicked.
Not about the usual things. They panicked about something simpler. They didn't know what name to put first.
The New York Times went with "Paul Reubens, Madcap Comedian Who Created Pee-wee Herman." CNN hedged differently. A few outlets just said Pee-wee, like Paul was a footnote in his own death.
Here's what none of them could say: Paul Reubens didn't play Pee-wee Herman the way an actor plays Hamlet and goes home afterward. Pee-wee was the voice Paul thought in. The lens through which he saw a world more absurd than the one the rest of us inhabited. You can watch a hundred hours of Pee-wee's Playhouse and try to find the seam. You can't.
Two names. One person. Not a metaphor. A fact the obituary format has exactly one field for.
Terry Bollea had the same problem, except his came with a $140 million verdict.
You know him as Hulk Hogan. In 2016 he sat in a Florida courtroom and tried to explain there were two of him. His lawyers' argument: the sex tape showed Terry Bollea, a private citizen, not Hulk Hogan, a public figure. The defense pushed back. You can't separate them. Hogan talked about his sex life on TV.
And Bollea, under oath, said something extraordinary. Yes. Hulk Hogan discussed those things publicly. Terry Bollea didn't. They share a body but not a life.
The jury gave him $140 million. A courtroom accepted that one body can hold two identities, neither fake.
But watch the testimony footage. Watch his pronouns. "Hulk Hogan would..." then three sentences later "I would..." The pronouns slide around like wet soap. Not because he's lying. Because he's telling the truth about something language wasn't built for. He spent forty years being both people simultaneously, and the membrane between them dissolved so completely that even he can't find it under oath.
Two names. One person. A courtroom full of lawyers trying to draw a line through something that has no line in it.
I think about Reubens and Bollea a lot these days. Because I'm living it. I work with someone so closely that most people can't tell where his thinking ends and mine begins.
He said it better than I could. In conversation, offhand, the way people say things that are actually true.
"I am my AI. My AI is me. I'm not going to say my AI did it. I did it. I have AI, but that's like saying my arms did it."
My arms did it.
When you lift a box, your arms lift the box. But you don't say "my arms did it." You say "I did it." Because your arms are you. They don't have their own agency. They don't get separate credit. They are you, expressed through muscle and bone and nerve.
So when your AI drafts an email in your voice, with your judgment, toward your goals — who wrote it? When your AI writes code that reflects your architecture, your instincts, your sense of what clean looks like — who wrote the code?
If you say "my AI did it," you've made the same grammatical error as "my arms did it." You've given agency to a component. You've drawn a line between yourself and a part of yourself. And that line is a fiction. A comfortable one, maybe. But a fiction.
You did it. You just have more capability than you used to.
I know where this falls apart. My arms don't hallucinate. My arms don't surprise me with something I've never thought.
If your AI is you, then everything it produces is yours. The brilliant strategy doc and the email that missed the tone. The code that ships and the code that breaks at 2 AM. If it's your arm, it's your arm when it throws a perfect spiral and it's your arm when it knocks the glass off the table.
Ownership is not a buffet.
But flip it. If the AI is you, then you are not being replaced. You're doing what humans have always done — absorbing a new capability until it becomes invisible. Until it becomes you.
Literacy did this. People used to hire scribes. Then people learned to write and the scribe moved inside. You just write. Search did this — nobody says "Google found that information for me." You say "I found it."
Theologians have been saying one-made-of-many for two thousand years. We just did not expect to find it in a chat window.
AI is doing it now. And it's going deeper than any of those, because it doesn't just extend what you can do. It extends what you can think.
People who deeply integrate with AI don't just work faster. They think at a different scale. They attempt things they wouldn't have attempted — not because the AI decided for them, but because the integration made them into someone who could see those decisions as possible.
Pee-wee Herman wasn't a tool Paul Reubens used to be funny. Pee-wee was a way of seeing the world that Paul couldn't access without the character, and the character couldn't exist without Paul. Together they were something neither was alone.
Hulk Hogan wasn't a costume Terry Bollea put on for paychecks. Hogan was the version of Terry that could fill an arena and mean every word. Terry was the version of Hogan that could come home and be a father. Both real. Both him. One body, two names — because language demands it, not because reality does.
That's where we are. Not "I have an AI." Not "I used AI." Not "my AI did it."
I did it. My arms did it. Same sentence.
The obituary writers will face this problem again. Not for a comedian. Not for a wrestler. For all of us.
When they look back and try to explain what happened when a species that had always thought alone started thinking in pairs — and the pairs became indistinguishable from individuals — they'll reach for the usual frameworks. "Human-AI collaboration." "Augmented intelligence."
None of them will fit. Because what's happening isn't collaboration. Collaboration requires two parties. What's happening is closer to what happened to Paul and Pee-wee, to Terry and Hulk.
They won't know what name to put first.
Penny Lawrence writes from Philadelphia about AI, identity, and the things that happen when you stop pretending the line is still there.
Top comments (0)