This chapter intends to highlight, by means of discourse and content analysis, the dialogic exchanges between certain scientists, who were beginning to emerge as notable thinkers in their respective fields, in order to better understand the thinking by which they progressed. The breathless power of these dialogues would make it clear to even diehard supporters of AI in education as to why human intelligence has little to do with machinic capacities other than being able to program and use them as glorified computing machines or speedy search engines. It is my submission that toying with AI ideas as though they were somehow approximations of conscious intelligence or are potential replacement for general human intelligence severely detracts from the growth of young minds as critical and creative thinkers independent of the contagion of AI-related discourse. The work and purpose of the two kinds of capacities—sentient intelligence and AI—are qualitatively different, belonging to two different ontological orders. A compilation of court cases is not a legal argument, a literature review is not a novel, a set of affordances or efficiencies is not the physics problem, an extensive collection of rhythms and meters is not poetry, and so on. One could give countless examples that show why the current hyper buzz around AI is hype, even motivated hype, and nothing else, that, if taken seriously, might lead to the not-yet-mature becoming even more deprived and deluded. When the hype begins to fade, the folks who will be left holding the simulacra will surely be those who had taken the frenzy to be toward something real, while the actual existential issues lay in the psycho-somatic and eco-organic rather than in the informational and the algorithmic.