Artificial Intelligence and Automation (see also "Political Economy" topic) > Likes and Comments

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have prompted wide public discussion of its propriety or impropriety and what, if anything, government should do about it.

I am not an expert on this subject. I am, however, currently aware of four major uses of AI:

1. For research purposes: I myself have used Microsoft Copilot AI as a research tool and have found it highly effective, saving me hours of time that I otherwise would have had to spend locating publications on specific subjects.

2. To create essays, creative literature, term papers, etc.: I regard this as unethical if it is done to pass off AI writing as one’s own. I see this as being mostly a problem for high schools, colleges, and universities. I understand that these institutions are developing tools to deal with this problem, just as they have developed tools in the past for detecting plagiarism. More broadly, it falls within the plagiarism policing of public media generally, including but not limited to copyright enforcement.

3. Military uses: see my post 262 (October 20, 2023) and my post 267 (October 31, 2023) in the “International Law and Politics” of this group.

4. Replacement of a large percentage of middle-class workers whose jobs can be done more quickly and efficiently by AI. This problem is further discussed below; see also the "Political Economy" topic of this Goodreads group.

For other discussions in this group on AI, do a search for “artificial intelligence” in the “search discussion posts” box located at the top right of each webpage in this group.

Please feel free to comment on these or other uses of AI or on your own views regarding this complicated subject.

Revised February 5, 2026

The Race to Regulate Artificial Intelligence: Why Europe Has an Edge Over America and China

Τhe foregoing is the title of this June 27, 2023 Foreign Affairs article by Anu Bradford: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united.... Bradford is Professor at Columbia Law School and the author of the forthcoming book Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology. (This Foreign Affairs article can be freely accessed, notwithstanding a subscription paywall, by agreeing to receive weekly/occasional emails from Foreign Affairs regarding their current articles.)

The third paragraph of this article summarizes its content:

With tech companies racing to advance artificial intelligence capabilities amid intense criticism and scrutiny, Washington is facing mounting pressure to craft AI regulation without quashing innovation. Different regulatory paradigms are already emerging in the United States, China, and Europe, rooted in distinct values and incentives. These different approaches will not only reshape domestic markets—but also increasingly guide the expansion of American, Chinese, and European digital empires, each advancing a competing vision for the global digital economy while attempting to expand its sphere of influence in the digital world.

CONSCIOUSNESS, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, REAL INTELLIGENCE, QUANTUM MIND, QUALIA, AND FREE WILL

I discuss the relevant work of biologist and complexity theorist Stuart A. Kauffman on pages 91–92 of my 2021 book Free Will and Human Life (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/108171849/Al...).

Kauffman and an Italian scholar, Andrea Boli, have recently published a paper titled “What Is Consciousness? Artificial Intelligence, Real Intelligence, Quantum Mind and Qualia” in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023, 139, 530–38. This essay is freely accessible at https://www.academia.edu/110296461/Wh.... I have quickly read through this article once, and I will study it further. Although it is a scientific paper, the authors write in clear language that is not impossible for the layperson to understand. Here are a few relevant excerpts:

This short paper makes four major claims: (i) artificial general intelligence is not possible; (ii) brain-mind is not purely classical; (iii) brain-mind must be partly quantum; (iv) qualia are experienced and arise with our collapse of the wave function. . . .

[F]or the first time since Newton, a Responsible Free Will is not ruled out. In the deterministic world of Newton, Free Will is impossible. Given quantum mechanics, the result of an actualization of measurement outcome is ontologically indeterminate, but fully random. I have Free Will but not Responsible Free Will. If I can try to alter the quantum outcome and succeed, responsible free will is not ruled out. This, if true, is transformative. . . .

With a responsible free will, we are indeed beyond Compatibilism . . . .

Moral: AI currently is wonderful, but syntactic and algorithmic. We are not merely syntactic and algorithmic. Mind is almost certainly quantum, and it is a plausible hypothesis that we collapse the wave function, and thereby perceive coordinated affordances as qualia and seize them by identifying, preferring, choosing and acting to do so. We, with our minds, play an active role in evolution. The complexity of mind and coordinated behaviours can have evolved, and diversified with and furthered, the complexity of life. At last, since Descartes lost his res cogitans, mind can act in the world.

Free at last.

Independent philosopher Robert Hanna, a member of this group, first introduced me to the work of Stuart Kauffman a few years ago, and I invite him to comment on the above-referenced paper.

I am cross-filing the present post in the “Free Will” and “Artificial Intelligence” topics of this Goodreads group.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE HUMAN MIND

I highly recommend the article titled “Subcontracting Our Minds” (https://www.academia.edu/125223176/Su...) by Timothy Burns, a political science professor who focuses on political philosophy.

IS AI READY FOR PRIME TIME IN THE COURTROOM?

As a long-retired litigation lawyer, I have questioned for decades the assertion that lawyers can and will be replaced by computers (now AI). Per this August 15, 2025 article (https://apnews.com/article/australia-...), it looks like AI is not (yet?) ready for prime time in the courtroom. I'm sure it can provide assistance, just as Westlaw and LEXIS have provided computer-based legal research assistance for both lawyers and paralegals since the 1970s (per my AI search, which confirms my recollection).

Legislators in New York (and probably elsewhere) flirt with the notion of banning it; or regulating it with warning flags like liquor and tobacco.

It's devastating arts & entertainment, despite the recent Hollywood strike where it was a specific bone of contention.

I can't help but wonder why the tech sector continually foists these 'advancements' on us which we never asked for and suffered no penury doing without. Instead of a boon, it's just another hobgoblin to grapple with.

Feliks wrote: "Legislators in New York (and probably elsewhere) flirt with the notion of banning it; or regulating it with warning flags like liquor and tobacco.

It's devastating arts & entertainment, despite th..."

"Generative AI" (having AI write one's papers, books, etc.) is, to my mind, a bad thing; I do all of my own writing without allowing AI to create it. However, I find AI helpful as a research tool. It often finds references that answer complex questions I have about history etc. It tells me in a few seconds what it used to take hours of my time to find in a library.

Like so many technological advances, it can be used for good purposes, or it can be abused.

I think banning AI is probably an impossible idea, similar to banning alcohol in the Prohibition era.

Artificial intelligence should serve humanity as a whole, and not steal our humanity. Poetry, philosophy, and art are, among other things, what make us reflect on ourselves and express our way of seeing the world. We should not allow an automatism to replace us in these endeavors; rather, we should direct automatism toward freeing us from the heavy works that prevent us from developing in these disciplines. Yet the dark reality is that behind artificial intelligence lies an immense army of underpaid workers tasked with perfecting this automation.

[re: msg #7] Alan wrote: "Like so many technological advances, it can be used for good purposes, or it can be abused...."

It's true that technology often comes with "trade-offs" --faster cars or quicker meal-times, for example -- in exchange for an unknown percentage of new mortalities each year.

Of course some technologies are so plainly, unmistakably bad that they have always been banned. Such as, nerve gas.

But I ask: why does the public never get the privilege of referendum when any of these unknown risk factors are added to our lives? Why do ordinary folk never have input to development trends? Why is it always outside the democratic process?

Automobiles and highways were introduced to America in this way --underhandedly. No one asked anyone beforehand whether we wanted travel revolutionized. Unscrupulous private firms carried out the transformation without any let or hindrance. They took it for granted that sales would vindicate their rash step. We weren't even asked afterwards. A fait accompli,

I'd like to see more such banning (re: nerve gas) return --since ever more such reckless technologies continue to abound. Yes, I admit it's unlikely.

Setting aside the Arts and treating just the main engines of our culture (law, gov't, science, engineering): it still seems to me highly reckless if professional or business documents would no longer prepared by professionals in these respective fields.

(Computer programmers are in no way licensed professionals of any kind whatsoever.)

For example --if my freedom or my livelihood was being shaped in any way by a US court ? --I would scream like a panther if any part of the decision was authored by a programmer.

Thus, I'd be astonished if AI was ever given a footprint in the apparatus which actually runs our society. In the same way, I only trust licensed doctors to write my medical prescriptions.

At the minimum, algorithms introduce yet another reason for citizens to 'mistrust' language. The 'man-in-the-American-street' already being very inclined to such mistrust; adding a valid reason which bolsters his suspicions --this strikes me as foolhardy.

Widespread mistrust of rule-of-law; or rule-of-government can create dangerous political fissures.

So --"Let prejudice have its say", as it were --even though it emanates from an unabashed, "knee-jerk techno-phobe" (myself).

AEJ --Alan --I wonder if I can cordially and friendly quiz you a little bit about your philosophy here in this thread. It would be a rare treat and also highlight the theme of your series of post-legal-career books (which I admire). Is it OK to ask you questions here, which pertain to this?

Feliks wrote: "AEJ --Alan --I wonder if I can cordially and friendly quiz you a little bit about your philosophy here in this thread. It would be a rare treat and also highlight the theme of your series of post-l..."

I am working on completing my final book, Reason and Human Government, which will take me another few weeks. And, really, everything you need to know about my philosophy is contained in those books, all of which are/will be freely available in PDF at https://chicago.academia.edu/AlanJohnson. (They can also be purchased on Amazon in Kindle and paperback editions; all of the Kindle editions are priced at $2.99 USD.) And drafts of the introduction, chapters 1–4, and the epilogue of Reason and Human Government are even posted at https://chicago.academia.edu/AlanJohnson, pending the completion of this book, after which I will post the entirety of it. I am currently working on chapter 5, which is the last chapter.

So, I don’t have time to engage in a dialogue about my philosophy with you right now. I would suggest that you read my books first (freely, if you wish, at the above-cited link) and then, if you have any questions, you can ask me. In any case, I will not be able to discuss this until after Reason and Human Government is completed and in print (sometime in September or October, 2025).

[February 1, 2026 Note: A PDF of my now-published book Reason and Human Government is available at https://www.academia.edu/145862733/Re.... Kindle and paperback editions are available at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0G....]

AI and JOBS

AI is already having a significant negative impact on employment. This is likely to get worse in the near and far future. The following October 13, 2025 article in Foreign Affairs magazine examines this problem and discusses possible ways to deal with it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united.... The article also explains how populist actions against immigrants and trade will not do anything to solve this problem but will instead make it worse.

Quote from the article: "Virtually every piece of research suggests that restricting immigration and trade will not stop companies from adopting AI. In fact, it may hasten layoffs. Reducing trade, for example, will raise input costs, shrink export markets, and heighten policy uncertainty—pressures that make labor-saving technologies such as automation more attractive in exposed industries."

Nonsubscribers to Foreign Affairs can access the entire article, without cost, by giving the magazine their email address for notices of future articles.

Alan wrote: "AI and JOBS

AI is already having a significant negative impact on employment. This is likely to get worse in the near and far future. The following October 13, 2025 article in Foreign Affairs maga..."

(Couldn't read the Foreign Affairs article)

AI is just the natural evolution of human technology. Ever since the invention of the wheel, the goal of innovation has been to optimize human labor, making it easier and more effective. Since the Industrial Revolution, this has led to high unemployment rates, for example, when textile machinery replaced manual workers. However, the way our society has been built, that is to say, to produce not for humanity itself but for the sake of private profit, creates new and unnecessary markets. And paradoxically, human labor is always needed.

A singularity of AI is that it needs a huge amount of human labor to work. Not to mention that every piece of information that chat AIs provide comes from human-made sources. That is to say, for AI to work as a source of profit, companies need a whole external system of human labor supply, because the actual abstract profit always comes from salary. Here is the trick: a company owner makes a profit from their workers, but if these workers don't get a salary, the monetary profit doesn't make sense. Think about it, if you produce tons of, let's say, cars, your goal is to sell those cars. If nobody has a salary because everything is made by robots, you are producing literal waste if you are not willing to give those cars for free. How do you even calculate prices if money loses the role of mediator between commodities and labor? Even the single accumulation of money would be a waste in such a society of automated work. Not to mention that the main source of income of our beloved Western leaders (financial speculation) would result in a huge waste of time if things stopped having a price.

I am not personally against automating certain kinds of labor. I think that agricultural labor, for example, could get a huge improvement if we replace humans with robots/drones, etc. In my region, agricultural workers are usually illegal immigrants who are employed in dystopic labor conditions and for a ridiculous amount of salary. If work is often (if not every single time) alienating, because the worker is not aware (because everyone of us works to get a salary) of how their work is part of an abstract mechanism of global work that configures the whole global society in one way or another, agricultural workers in semi-slavery conditions are less aware about that their job is literally feeding us. A robot doesn't need a salary and doesn't get emotional, which means that everything produced by a robot follows the same pattern and, with some human supervision, can increase the product quality.

I do believe that erasing the competition between companies and countries, humanity as a whole, could organize society in a way where humans are liberated from hard labor and can work on things chosen by vocation and not by the urge for a salary. You can call me a utopian, but the facts are that automated work is leading us to a huge contradiction between Labor and Capital. And besides the ongoing conflicts, humanity is connected enough to take a new step towards global pacification and production oriented to the real human needs.

P.S. Marketing completely distorts human needs. The goal of marketing (which is the main organizer of the nowadays capitalist society in every single social aspect) is to satisfy an artificial need. This is bringing us to create new (and absurd) markets that absorb human capacities and resources just for the profit of the genius (99% of the time, rich) behind the campaign. Have you ever seen a product in a shop, and asked yourself: who the f*** buys this sh**? Through an efficient marketing campaign, probably somebody does. The truth is that we don't need many of the things we use on our daily basis, and we just use these things because we were convinced that we needed those things. We don't even need to have 8000 brands for the same product; a coordinated production would be enough. But this is probably a new topic.

P.S.2. Please, don't judge me because of my overusage of the word ''literally'' or ''literal'', I am a young, non-academic, self-taught, non-native English speaker.

“Professors are turning to this old-school method to stop AI use on exams”

The foregoing is the title of this December 12, 2025 Washington Post gift article: https://wapo.st/48zzw1Z. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the preceding link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.) The article notes that many professors in colleges and universities are turning to oral exams and blue book (in-class written) exams as an antidote to AI cheating. This is probably the only way to solve the problem of AI cheating in higher education. It is regrettable but likely inevitable. I learned to write by numerous outside paper requirements in high school, college, and grad school, though most of my law school courses during the 1970s had in-class blue book exams. In these blue book exams, we were assigned a number for each exam, so that the professor would not be able to identify the student by name. The grades were posted by number on a public bulletin board. In order to avoid cheating and personal prejudice of any kind, blue book exams (with numbers replacing student names on the exam) are likely the best practice. Oral exams (which I have never experienced) cannot, of course, avoid personal prejudice, though in many ways they might be the best way of testing a student’s knowledge and understanding. However, oral exams may be very time consuming for the instructor, especially in large courses; moreover, they test instant recall as distinguished from the more thoughtful and reflective process of writing an outside paper. But AI has destroyed the erstwhile outside paper requirement for student evaluations.

I am posting this comment in both the “Artificial Intelligence” and “Education; Public Libraries” topics of this Goodreads group.

“Pennsylvania judge questions potential AI hallucinations in legal brief for gender-identity suit”

The foregoing is the title of this December 12, 2025 article: https://www.wesa.fm/politics-governme....

This phenomenon has been happening all over the country. Lawyers have a duty to examine all legal authorities they cite in their briefs. If they are just trusting AI to do this, we might as well turn the legal profession over to AI robots. I've always said that AI will never replace lawyers, especially litigation lawyers. Perhaps I spoke too soon.

Scathing article re: AI from Forbes magazine in light of this year's (August thru October) colossal data breach which took place at Google Inc. Largest data breach yet, in "cyber-history".

vhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffm...

If it's not too egregious a use of discussion space, I'll reprint the entire article due to Forbes' paywall.

The critical decisions 2 billion users now face to maintain their security and privacy.

There’s nothing to worry about, Google tells Gmail’s 2 billion users, everything is fine. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. There is a serious issue that you need to worry about. All the misleading headlines and quickfire denials have not made that go away.

In recent weeks we have seen two versions of the same pattern. A loosely framed Gmail story triggering wild headlines and a public correction. First was a huge security breach framed as a new Gmail password leak. Then came a new Google policy on AI training.

The breach was not new and it was not linked to Gmail. An amalgamation of prior data leaks will always contain plenty of Gmail data — it’s the world’s largest email platform. And there has been no policy change on AI training on Gmail inboxes.

Google pointed all this out, and the wild headlines morphed into “nothing to see here.” This pattern will continue to repeat. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

But this is all bad news for users — the stories and the corrections. It points to a lack of understanding of privacy policies and what’s actually being done with user data. It’s not a Google-specific issue. But Google is the gorilla in the cage. And that matters.

Here’s the crux. Gemini is not your close personal friend, it’s not your confidente. Neither is ChatGPT or Copilot. They’re someone else’s computer, operating out of grey data centers, consuming an increasing percentage of the world’s energy and water.

You are responsible for your own privacy and security. Not Google. Not Meta. Not OpenAI. Not even Apple. You can select the vendors and platforms you think have the best architectures and defenses and privacy polices. But the choice is yours.

Google is often painted as a bête noire when it comes to privacy. But its platforms dominate. Just look at Chrome. An unassailable install base despite almost continual privacy warnings — including from Apple and Microsoft. This perfectly illustrates the disconnect. Users can’t say they weren’t warned when tracking takes place.

And so it is with Gmail. You have one very specific choice to make, as confirmed by Google repeatedly and again recently. Using its cloud-based services is your decision. Your opt-in. And even if some users have been automatically opted in by default, a quick check and two taps/clicks and that can be easily corrected.

If you allow Gemini — aka Google’s vast array of power-hungry servers in global data centers — to pore over your inbox, to analyze your private emails, however sensitive they are — then that’s fine. As long as you have made a conscious decision to do so.

Make a choice. Do not sacrifice your privacy through inertia or ambivalence.

And that’s where Google (and Microsoft and Meta and others) can be criticized. Privacy policies are a mess. It should be impossible for users to open their data to cloud services without a clear understanding as to what that actually means.

Meanwhile, tech giants will continue to pour billions into new AI capabilities and the wall-to-wall marketing shaping this new space race. As they do so, 2 billion Gmail users and the billions on all the other platforms will continue to sleep walk onto thin ice.

A new report puts Google’s unstoppable AI push across Gmail and other Workspace platforms into context: “Could Microsoft walk away with the corporate AI market?”

Josh Bersin suggests “Microsoft is staking out the market for corporate productivity and AI infrastructure, leveraging its massive Microsoft 365 install base and deep relationships with IT.” And “for individual productivity, Microsoft has now "embedded Copilot agents into Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, with insights into Outlook.”

Meanwhile, Parmy Olson writing for Bloomberg suggests “ChatGPT still has a winning edge over Google’s AI.” But what OpenAI lacks is a legacy install base. That makes Google and Microsoft hard to beat — ultimately.

The lesson from the recent launch of AI browsers, which don’t yet make much sense and so won’t yet disrupt the status quo, is that AI is at its most powerful when applied to what we’re doing already. Yes, ChatGPT defined a new category, but will this really succeed standalone or will it need to be stitched into Google’s or Microsoft’s productivity apps or into Apple’s or Google’s or Microsoft’s OS ecosystems?

In reality, we’re at the beginning of the space race. But what’s also clear is that privacy and user data security is not the differentiator we thought when Apple launched Private Cloud Computing and tried to use the iPhone enclave to expand into AI. Just as with browsers, users are showing they don’t yet care or worry enough about privacy. And even data security is something of an afterthought. Who doesn’t want Nano Banana?

Make no mistake — you’re already out on that thin ice.

p.s. What else of recent interest besides Google being hacked? Ah yes, Airbus (leading plane maker) discovering solar storms hampering flight controls on cockpit software. Half the globe's commercial jumbo jet fleet; grounded. What else: one global outage of Microsoft Windows, one global internet outage. All our infrastructure is held together with bubble gum.

The Atlantic Monthly is publishing a series of articles investigating this new tech sector.

Latest finding: the makers of AI have lied to the US Justice Dept about how their language models inherently carry out copyright infringement.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...

This is from WYNYC, (it's a print version of a story covered by my local Public Radio affiliate).

New AI rules for NYC schools coming this month as tech upends classrooms

The city’s education department said new guidelines are coming this month on artificial intelligence for New York City’s public schools – and for some parents the rules can’t come soon enough.

The DOE's Chief Academic Officer Miatheresa Pate said at a meeting of the Panel for Educational Policy last week that the city will release “guardrails for what we do next” with AI. Parents will be able to register their feedback.

Many parents said the city has been slow to come up with clear policies on AI, leading to a spike in plagiarism and privacy risks.

Sarah Gentile, a parent in Brooklyn, said she was alarmed last year to learn that her kindergartner’s class was using voice recording technology as part of the new literacy curriculum.

When she heard about the voice recording, she asked that her daughter not participate, citing concerns about the tech company having access to her daughter’s voice, and the potential for data breaches.

“It’s biometric data,” she said.

Her daughter, now a first grader, and one other child sit in a corner doing a separate activity while their classmates use the voice app, she said.

Gentile said the city should have clear parameters for AI use in schools, inform parents, and offer them the chance to opt out.

“We’re not technophobes,” said Gentile, a digital archivist. “But there seems to be an absence of a tech plan.”

Gentile is among the parents who have signed a petition pushing for a two-year moratorium on all AI in classrooms.

“The largest school system in the country should use its purchasing power and moral authority to protect children, not leave them subject to a surveillance experiment that will undermine learning and leave them a world on fire,” the petition says.

Educators and parents have criticized the department’s approach to AI as slow-footed and inconsistent. The education department banned the use of ChatGPT in schools shortly after it launched two years ago, then lifted the ban. Meanwhile, the teachers union has partnered with big tech companies, promising training in responsible use of the technology.

In recent months the Panel for Education Policy, an oversight body composed of parent representatives and political appointees, has voted down several contracts because of concerns about AI.

Member Naveed Hasan said he opposed greenlighting contracts for AI technology before the city has a policy in place.

“The playbook is late,” he said, adding that tech companies are aggressively marketing their tools to school districts. “There’s so much money pushing products into the DOE.”

Last week, the panel narrowly approved a contract for a company called Kiddom to provide online software and materials that supplement the new literacy and math curricula. The panel initially rejected the contract, and only approved it after the company and Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels promised the software does not include AI.

“This is critical because we're trying to get to what you want, which is not to have the AI platform available,” said Samuels.

Abbas Manjee, co-founder of Kiddom and a former city teacher, said the AI component of Kiddom can be useful to teachers, but said this version of the product doesn’t have AI. He cautioned against viewing all AI products as privacy risks, saying his platform had safeguards in place.

While crafting the new playbook on AI, the education department convened two working groups, one on data privacy, and another on AI more broadly.

But Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters and a member of the data privacy group, said the department has not been transparent.

“Our Working Group has been stymied, sidelined and stonewalled at every step of the way, and refused the most basic information, including the names of AI products currently used in schools, along with their privacy policies,” she wrote in a letter to the panel in December.

Her group has raised concern about software companies “mining” students’ and teachers’ data and called for a pause on AI in schools “until rigorous guardrails are established.”

Education department officials countered that information about student data and privacy is public, and that the working group has met multiple times.

In an interview with WNYC in January, Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels sounded a note of cautious optimism regarding AI.

“ I think number one thing we have to do is to really work against some of the fear that's attached to the conversation around AI,” he said.

He said the department would be announcing safeguards, while looking to harness AI productively.

“ I'm excited about it,” he said. “It has so much potential to reframe and rethink so much of what we do. And if we do it well, it has the potential to accelerate student learning.”

An opposing philosophy with nice counterpoint:
https://www.the74million.org/article/...

AI and JOBS

The last paragraph of the epilogue of my book Reason and Human Government states:

For millennia, some form of what we call capitalism has been the default economic mechanism. Totalitarian, command economies have never worked. At the present time, however, human societies are facing the possibility of massive unemployment due to automation and artificial intelligence. It may be that more and more people are left behind in this brave new economic world. It is perhaps too soon to predict whether such a calamity will actually occur. If it does happen, governments will have to figure out a way to preserve the human species in the face of unprecedented economic circumstances. Some modification of laissez-faire capitalism may be necessary. The subject of political economy will become all-important. At my advanced age, I will not be around if and when the worst of this phenomenon occurs. It is a question for younger generations to solve.

In his book Null Future: Survival in the Age of Replacement; A Guide to the AI Economy and Human Adaptation, L. Sen recommends that people abandon jobs that will soon be replaced by AI and concentrate on jobs that AI cannot do. For example, AI cannot handle plumbing, surgery, trial litigation, and many personal service jobs. Sen’s analysis is based on personal experience and on many studies that he cites throughout the book. Then there are Elon Musk and the Silicon Valley elitists, who think that AI and robots will basically replace human beings, though without getting into specifics of how people would live without gainful employment (see https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other...). Some argue for universal basic income (UBI). It’s not clear, however, how UBI in an AI and automated world would work. Would government heavily tax AI owners and redistribute their wealth? And, without work, would people learn how to improve their lives through education or by developing skills that cannot be replicated by AI? I am not at all an expert in these matters, but it appears to me that there are many more questions than answers to these quandaries.

I asked Microsoft Copilot AI the following question: “What specific proposals have people made for dealing with the anticipated massive unemployment resulting from AI and automation. Please cite sources.” It give me an answer that is too long and too complicated to be reproduced here. If interested, you can ask this or a related question to your own AI source and see what they say.

A fair day's work --in return for a fair day's pay --this is a traditional virtue of American society. Americans are never afraid of good, hard, honest toil. Historically, we thrive on it.

I hope I never live to see a USA where this is warped, distorted, or misshapen.

It is the height of short-sightedness and folly that computer programmers (among the least well-educated of any sector of our modern workforce) are threatening to disrupt culture to such extent.

”The scientist who predicted AI psychosis has issued another dire warning”

The foregoing is the title of this February 7, 2026 article: https://www.psypost.org/the-scientist....

Excerpts:

In a new letter to the editor published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, Østergaard argues that academia and the sciences are facing a crisis of “cognitive debt.” He posits that the outsourcing of writing and reasoning to generative AI is eroding the fundamental skills required for scientific discovery. The commentary builds upon a growing body of evidence suggesting that while AI can mimic human output, relying on it may physically alter the brain’s ability to think. . . .

The psychiatrist acknowledges the utility of AI for surface-level tasks. He notes that using a tool to proofread a manuscript for grammar is largely harmless. However, he points out that technology companies are actively marketing “reasoning models” designed to solve complex problems and plan workflows. While this sounds efficient, Østergaard suggests it creates a paradox. He questions whether the next generation of scientists will possess the cognitive capacity to make breakthroughs if they never practice the struggle of reasoning themselves. . . .

The warning is clear. The convenience of generative AI comes with a hidden cost. It is not merely a matter of students cheating on essays or doctors losing their writing flair. The evidence suggests a fundamental change in how the brain processes information. By skipping the struggle of learning and reasoning, humans may be sacrificing the very cognitive traits that allow for scientific advancement and independent judgment

I recommend reading the entirety of this article. It is based on a scientific paper cited at the end of the article, but the scientific paper is protected by a paywall. Additionally, though this article focuses on scientific inquiry, these points apply as well to nonscientific fields in which reasoning and critical thinking are important.

Wow. Good find there, Alan.

For me -- as a professional --I would never resort to using AI even if they smoothed out all the bugs. It simply doesn't belong 'unleashed' in any environment where people or property is at risk.

My reasoning:

1. It's too new a development and therefore, not tested enough. Hasn't stood the test of time. Too any unknowns.

2. 'Saving labor' is a myth. If a computer generates anything for me, whatever they generate, must still be tested & checked for errors. Thoroughly verified.

Most of all there is an ethical issue here (thus apropos to this group's theme). The ethical issue is one of professional responsibility.

3. If I initiate a computer-designed task, if I punch-a-few-buttons, and then walk away... leave the room ...okay, let's say that task accidentally costs someone their life. If so, who is to blame? The computer? No, not at all. Computers have no forethought beforehand nor any conscience afterward. So the culpability for whatever tragedy occurs, is always mine. Therefore, I check everything I do whether computer-assisted or not. I insist on it, or else I would be shirking my duty.

Feliks. what do you propose? Do you think government should ban it? Would that even be possible? Would it violate the First Amendment? This whole generative AI revolution poses all kinds of problems, from individual brain atrophy or psychosis (per the article I linked) to possible/probable massive unemployment. But Trump, the Congress, and the stock market seem ecstatic about AI, probably because they think it will increase their billions by more billions. Crypto is another such thing. I actually don’t see any “socially redeeming value” to crypto. It will just cause the next huge stock market crash.

As the article I linked pointed out, using AI as a search engine or as an editor (not generator) doesn't have such negative psychological effects. I myself have found it useful in those ways. But I agree that generative AI is an intellectual, moral, and probably socio-economic evil. I just don't see a solution. As I state in my book Reason and Human Government, there are some problems that can only be solved by an ethical and rational revolution, but, unfortunately, we cannot wait centuries until evolution brings humankind to that pinnacle. Indeed, given recent trends, it is more likely that it will destroy itself long before ever reaching that point.

Yes, I'd certainly recommend banning it. We should apply the same caution to this new tech-gimmick, with which we (try) to ban automatic weapons.

At the very least, to give the new toys time to mature. More time for evaluation. True to form --AI, like everything else from Silicon Valley --is rushed into widespread distribution.

Who applied any oversight in this marketing blitz? Who applies any checks or balances? Is anyone even qualified to foresee potential pitfalls of these products?

How dare our educators blithely permit any new tech to simply glide into K-12 classrooms -- without proper scrutiny. Children should not be used as white lab mice.

You're right in that our plutocrats view every new technology as a cash-cow. But --since when does corporate/management ever apply foresight? What do they ever care about job loss, children's health, or loss-of-life?

If we would heed to our better angels, if we would just keep our heads and exercise proper reserve ...we would admit that we simply do not need to mass-manufacture every single new invention which comes along.

There have been 5-6 major digital collapses over the past two years. We are barely keeping this ship afloat!

p.s. re Protected Speech --I thought we covered that elsewhere in the group? Maybe in the Algorithm discussion? Or Media Ethics?

Federal Judge nixes Rights

https://www.courthousenews.com/florid...

https://www.goodformedia.org/learn/in...

https://www.mediainstitute.org/2025/0...

Feliks wrote (post 24, February 7, 2026): "Yes, I'd certainly recommend banning it. We should apply the same caution to this new tech-gimmick, with which we (try) to ban automatic weapons."

There is long-standing First Amendment constitutional law (in the United States) distinguishing between what is called “prior restraint” and later punishment regarding First Amendment speech. (See, for example, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/artic....) It is my belief that banning AI outright would constitute impermissible prior restraint or would otherwise fail “strict scrutiny” under First Amendment decisions by the US Supreme Court. A general governmental ban on AI would be unconstitutional, but a person could sue for damage caused by AI or internet technology generally, especially if the case involved a minor. There are many very complicated constitutional issues involved in these issues, and the law is not altogether settled due to the newness of the technology. See generally https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/a....

A simple ban on AI generally would also be practically impossible. It would never pass in Congress. The genie is already out of the bottle, and I don’t see any possibility of it being put back in.

In 2024, the European Union (EU) adopted an Artificial Intelligence Act, regulating many aspects of AI use. See https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artific.... The United States would do well to consider adopting some or all of these regulations. However, European nations have never protected free speech rights as thoroughly as has the United States under First Amendment jurisprudence.

A ban on automatic weapons is different, because it implicates the Second Amendment to the US Constitution rather than the First Amendment. This involves a separate area of US jurisprudence, in which even Justice Scalia seemed to recognize that governments had a right to ban “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See his opinion of the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008), https://www.loc.gov/resource/usrep.us.... As a general proposition, federal law and some state laws prohibit the private ownership of automatic weapons. See https://legalclarity.org/are-automati....

re: msg #26 AEJ
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

H'mm. I should know better than to debate law with a lawyer. Especially one as sharp as yourself. It's like trying to hold back a tide with bare hands..

But I truly don't feel the US government is helpless in this new landscape.

I don't believe either, that even the most liberal interpretation of democracy 'owes' computers any protection.

[No more protection than a miscreant ought to enjoy if that miscreant recklessly yells 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.]

After all, computer viruses are not protected by law. Computer hackers are not protected by law.

Plagiarists & copyright infringers are not protected. These holes in the dyke can be plugged. Modern regulators often step up with innovative law-making.

~Bans on the sale of individual data metrics by data brokers (California & the EU) is an example of a big 'win' for quality-of-life
~Bans on smart-phones are finally arriving.

These examples all give me hope. Of course, 'prior restraint' is a powerful argument. Yes, I've read The Pentagon Papers.

In return, I can only clumsily cite one of my favorite pieces of US legislation:

Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona

This case has stuck in my skull since college. It illustrates US environmental case law. The principle is one I admire: 'coming to the nuisance'.

As I grasp it, US environmental law favors the defendants when a plaintiff "comes to" a setting which is already in existing use by the defendants. When one "comes to" an existing landscape, one can hardly complain about nuisances like odor, or insects, or noise.

The plaintiffs in Spur vs Del Webb were home builders who "came to" a rural hamlet where they experienced a 'high nuisance factor'. But they chose to build near a hog farm and so had no right to air any grievance.

In my amateurish way, that's where I feel AI stands. The tech industry is barging in on American life much as did the plaintiffs who barged in on the hog farms in Spur vs Webb.

The creators of AI are 'coming to' the American public probably expecting sales, and minimal regulations. If we disappoint them in this, if we reject their marketing plan, they will likely feel unfairly burdened and 'much put upon'.

But to my way of thinking: Americans have a right not to be disrupted by AI, the same way as we have a right to be free from scammers, hackers & viruses.

These Silicon Valley entities are all rather "late-to-the-party". They are 'crashing the party' (as it were), with fighting and shouting. Breaking our furniture. They bring no benefit, they add no value; they only cause harm and upset.

If the law rightfully restricts them, then (I feel) they should have no more gripe than the homeowners in Arizona who raised frivolous complaints against existing farmland they chose to invade.

Really --even with the most love in the world for the First Amendment --what ought I care if they should ever feel their speech is impinged? They are goring my ox, and I can spare them no sympathy. These gate-crashers are making me lose sleep. They should be ejected, not given any VIP treatment.

Feliks, when I first read what you wrote about the Spur Industries case, I thought your were talking about people who willingly expose themselves to AI. I now see you have a different perspective about this matter. However, analogy is not proof: see my discussion of the fallacy of false analogy on pages 47-48 of my book Reason and Human Ethics (https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...).

I think that the European Union’s AI Act (see my post to which you responded) provides remedies for many of the evils of AI, and I think the United States should adopt similar legislation. However, to ban AI outright is, in my view, not only unconstitutional but also practically impossible in the United States.

Not all evils can or should be eradicated by laws. As I state in both Reason and Human Ethics and Reason and Human Government, a perfectly good society will exist only after a ethical and rational reformation of humankind. And that will not occur in the present century and, most likely, not in the next few centuries. Government has proper affirmative functions (see chapter 3 of Reason and Human Government), but when one starts banning speech a priori, one goes against the whole received tradition of US constitutionalism.

AI DID NOT GENERATE REASON AND HUMAN GOVERNMENT

On February 8, 2026, someone posted this question to me about my book Reason and Human Government on Academia.edu (https://www.academia.edu/community/VX... “Is this written by a human or generated by AI?”

I responded as follows:

Thank you for reading this PDF of Reason and Human Government (Academia.edu says you read 279 pages of it). As a preface to my answer to your question, I call your attention to my following statement on page vii of the book: “The present third book of this philosophical trilogy addresses difficult questions of political philosophy. I have been studying and thinking about political philosophy since the 1960s. Some of my tentative views on aspects of this subject have changed a number of times over the decades. This book represents my final conclusions. With regard to questions about which I still entertain doubts, I adumbrate the major alternatives and cite references on all sides of the issues for the reader’s further study and reflection. There are, however, important matters about which my views are sufficiently formed and ready for presentation to the public. This is why I have written this book and why it has taken me so long to complete it.” See also the detailed endnotes from pages 218 to 251 as well as the selected bibliography on pages 252 to 263. AI, for all its advances, could not possibly have written this book. I have literally spent almost all of my life researching, thinking about, and writing about the issues of which this book is the final reflection. (See the long history of my writings, going back to 1967, on subjects relevant to Reason and Human Government as reproduced on Academia.edu and linked on my Academia.edu profile page.) I commenced the actual writing of Reason and Human Government in 2022, after the completion of my book Reason and Human Ethics. For how the three books of my philosophical trilogy are interrelated, see pages vi-ix of Reason and Human Government. I published the first book—Free Will and Human Life—of this trilogy in 2021. Thus, the first two books of the trilogy were published before generative AI was widely available.

Accordingly, I did NOT use GENERATIVE AI to create any portion of Reason and Human Government. Microsoft Copilot AI first became publicly available on February 7, 2023. Draftsmith first became publicly available on December 6, 2023. PerfectIt, an editing tool, became available earlier, but PerfectIt explicitly states that it does not have a generative AI capability. Draftsmith is also an editing tool. After Copilot became publicly available, I sometimes used it as a search engine (comparable to Google Search and Bing) to locate primary and secondary sources that would otherwise have taken me much longer to find. This is analogous to traditional research. In fact, during my years as a practicing attorney (1979-2012), I used LEXIS and Westlaw in a similar manner, and it would have been professional malpractice not to have done so.

I independently published Reason and Human Government and my earlier books under my own publishing imprint, Philosophia Publications. As such, I did not have access to an editor in a traditional publishing company. I have developed my writing style over many decades (again, see my many publications on Academia.edu). Occasionally, however, I find I have written an infelicitously worded sentence, and, of course, typographical errors also occur. In order to see alternative ways of expressing some thoughts and to correct typographical errors, I sometimes consulted PerfectIt, Wordsmith, and Copilot in the later stages of writing Reason and Human Government. I rejected, however, about 99 percent of their suggestions, preferring my own original formulations. Indeed, Wordsmith is based on British grammar, spelling, and punctuation, whereas I follow the Chicago Manual of Style , the standard in US scholarship. The revisions in Reason and Human Government attributable to editing suggestions from these sources constitute much less than 1 percent of the book. If I had used an editor in a traditional publishing house, I’m sure I would have spent untold hours arguing with them over stylistic issues. Having developed my writing style over more than six decades, I am too independent and stubborn to let a publishing company dictate how my book could be written.

The foregoing should answer your question. Again, thank you for reading my book.

re: msg #28 (AEJ)

Alan wrote: "analogy is not proof..."

Agreed. I merely did the best I could as a layman. I wouldn't imagine my arguments will ever be legally sound. I'd be shot down immediately in any court.

“America Isn’t Ready for What AI Will Do to Jobs: Does anyone have a plan for what happens next?” by Josh Tyrangiel

This February 10, 2027 Atlantic article is long but very good. The gift link, taking the reader beyond the paywall, is https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/.... If it doesn’t work, please let me know.

Toothsome article on the gullibility of AI's early-adopters, here:

https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/ll...

The author explains that when it comes to this kind of technology, digiteratti can be seduced as if by carnival barkers.

I came across it when I was searching for a browser which has no AI. Reason: ordinarily I must spend five minutes turning-off-all-the-AI, anytime I open a browser.

Fortunately, I've found a handful of alternative browsers and one of them is excellent ['Vivaldi' browser].

Another unexpected development: now that AI is gumming up the works, programmers have had to construct AI detectors. The problem is these detectors often flag human-generated content as AI when it is not:

https://textpulse.ai/the-false-positi...

Another headache associated with AI, first reported in the journal, Nature.

Summed up nicely below in Forbes (with even a Plato reference). Forbes articles are limited-access so I will provide some excerpts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardm...

Why AI Models Are Collapsing And What It Means For The Future Of Technology

By Bernard Marr

Artificial intelligence has revolutionized everything from customer service to content creation, giving us tools like ChatGPT and Google Gemini, which can generate human-like text or images with remarkable accuracy. But there’s a growing problem on the horizon that could undermine all of AI’s achievements—a phenomenon known as "model collapse."

Model collapse, recently detailed in a Nature article by a team of researchers, is what happens when AI models are trained on data that includes content generated by earlier versions of themselves. Over time, this recursive process causes the models to drift further away from the original data distribution, losing the ability to accurately represent the world as it really is. Instead of improving, the AI starts to make mistakes that compound over generations, leading to outputs that are increasingly distorted and unreliable.

This isn’t just a technical issue for data scientists to worry about. If left unchecked, model collapse could have profound implications for businesses, technology, and our entire digital ecosystem.

What Exactly Is Model Collapse?
Let’s break it down. Most AI models, like GPT-4, are trained on vast amounts of data—much of it scraped from the internet. Initially, this data is generated by humans, reflecting the diversity and complexity of human language, behavior, and culture. The AI learns patterns from this data and uses it to generate new content, whether it’s writing an article, creating an image, or even generating code.

But what happens when the next generation of AI models is trained not just on human-generated data but also on data produced by earlier AI models? The result is a kind of echo chamber effect. The AI starts to "learn" from its own outputs, and because these outputs are never perfect, the model's understanding of the world starts to degrade. It's like making a copy of a copy of a copy—each version loses a bit of the original detail, and the end result is a blurry, less accurate representation of the world.

This degradation happens gradually, but it’s inevitable. The AI begins to lose the ability to generate content that reflects the true diversity of human experience. Instead, it starts producing content that is more uniform, less creative, and ultimately less useful.

Why Should We Care?
At first glance, model collapse might seem like a niche problem, something for AI researchers to worry about in their labs. But the implications are far-reaching. If AI models continue to train on AI-generated data, we could see a decline in the quality of everything from automated customer service to online content and even financial forecasting.

For businesses, this could mean that AI-driven tools become less reliable over time, leading to poor decision making, reduced customer satisfaction, and potentially costly errors. Imagine relying on an AI model to predict market trends, only to discover that it’s been trained on data that no longer accurately reflects real-world conditions. The consequences could be disastrous.

Moreover, model collapse could exacerbate issues of bias and inequality in AI. Low-probability events, which often involve marginalized groups or unique scenarios, are particularly vulnerable to being "forgotten" by AI models as they undergo collapse. This could lead to a future where AI is less capable of understanding and responding to the needs of diverse populations, further entrenching existing biases and inequalities.

Feliks wrote: "Another headache associated with AI, first reported in the journal, Nature.

Summed up nicely below in Forbes (with even a Plato reference). Forbes articles are limited-access so I will provide so..."

So, to paraphrase Marx, AI contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction? I guess time will tell.

GOVERNMENTAL USE/MISUSE OF AI

This February 28, 2026 column by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is titled “Real Despots Hijack Artificial Intelligence”: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/28/op... (gift article). Although Dowd writes as an opinion journalist, her interpretations of events sometime unearth facts that most public news accounts omit. This column is an example. Although I wish she would document her facts, she is not writing as an academic scholar, and her column does not contain scholarly footnotes/endnotes. With these caveats, I recommend reading this particular column while keeping in mind that this is a complicated area in which we, the public, might not have access to all of the relevant facts. If one has the time (which I don’t at the moment), one could try to fact-check every factual claim she makes in the column.

AI and JOBS

See this March 5, 2026 gift article regarding the effect of AI on white-collar jobs: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/05/op....