Author: jh staff

Love in the Age of AI

The plotline of the 2013 science-fiction film, “Her,” centers around a man who falls in love with a computer.

Back then the concept was fantasy. Now, unfortunately, it’s cold hard reality.

A number of specialized platforms have recently sprung up that are designed to connect people together with AI companions, all for the purposes of developing friendships and even romantic relationships.

Many would agree that adolescence oftentimes manifests itself as one of the most confusing and challenging times in one’s life, physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially.

Amid the physical changes and psychological swings are the gut-wrenching feelings of potential rejection, insecurity, low self-esteem, and loneliness.

When presented with the opportunity, a growing number of teenagers who are experiencing loneliness are now opting to bypass human relationships.

Virtual AI created chatbots are currently doling out advice, providing mental health therapy, serving as companions, and even engaging in intimacy.

As a matter of fact the apps that provide digitally created friendships are one of the fastest-growing segments of the AI industry.

Legitimate questions are being raised as to what impact artificial friendships will have on the psychological, emotional, and social development of our youth and on our society at large.

A couple of months ago New York Times technology columnist Kevin Roose was researching artificial intelligence in the form of a chatbot, which was part of Microsoft’s Bing search engine.

Roose was communicating back and forth with an AI personality known as “Sydney,” when out of nowhere the AI creation declared its love for Roose.

Roose wrote, “It then tried to convince me that I was unhappy in my marriage, and that I should leave my wife and be with it instead.”

Sydney also spoke about hacking, spreading false information, and breaching its boundaries.

Then something quite chilling occurred. “I want to be alive,” the chatbot reportedly uttered.

Roose described his two-hour conversation with the AI bot as the “strangest experience I’ve ever had with a piece of technology.” Understandably, the columnist shared that the conversation with the chatbot bothered him to such a degree he found it difficult to sleep.

The same writer is now doing a related story about how he got involved with AI companions.

For the project, Roose employed six apps that provide AI-powered friends. He conjured up 18 different digital personas via the apps and proceeded to communicate with them for a month.

Although he found some positives from his research, he also discovered some disturbing aspects. He viewed some of the digital friends as being “exploitative” in that the creations attempted to lure users with the promise of romance and then tried to exact additional money from them for photos that displayed nudity.

Roose described the AI creations as the AI “version of a phone sex line.”

In a recent article in The Verge, reporters interviewed teens who are users of one of the AI friend apps called “Character.AI.”

On Character.AI, millions of young users can interact with an anime, a video game character, a celebrity, or a historical figure.

Note of caution: Many of the chatbots are explicitly romantic and/or sexualized.

One of the most popular Character.AI personalities is called “Psychologist.” It has already received more than 100 million chats.

The Verge reporters created hypothetical teen scenarios with the chatbot, which resulted in it making questionable mental health diagnoses and potentially damaging pronouncements.

Kelly Merrill, an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati who studies the mental and social health benefits of communication technologies, is quoted by the website as saying, “Those that don’t have the AI literacy to understand the limitations of these systems will ultimately pay the price.”   

The price for teens may be way too costly. According to the developers of the app, users spend an average of two hours a day interacting with their AI friends.

On Reddit, where the Character.AI forum has well over a million subscribers, many users indicate that they spend as much as 12 hours a day on the platform. The users also describe feeling addicted to chatbots.

Several of the apps that feature AI companions claim that their primary benefit is that these technologically contrived personas provide unconditional support to users, which in some cases may be helpful in preventing suicide.

However, the unconditional support of AI friends may turn out to be problematic in the long run.

An AI friend that constantly praises could amplify self-esteem to a distorted level, which could result in overly-positive self-evaluations.

Research indicates that such individuals may end up lacking in social skills and are likely to develop behavior that inhibits positive social interactions.

Fawning AI companions could cause teens who spend time with them to become more self-centered, less empathetic, and outright selfish. This may even encourage lawless behavior in some instances.

The intimacy in which teens are engaging with digitally contrived AI personalities poses the same problems that are associated with pornography in general. The effortless gratification provided may suppress the motivation to socialize, thereby inhibiting the formation of meaningful personal relationships.

The bottom line is there really are no substitutes for authentic relationships with fellow human beings.

Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise may already be missing a piece of their heart.

The Consequences of a Godless Society

We are living in the Age of the Unthinkable.

“Surreal,” “disturbing,” and “frightening” are some of the words that are rolling off the tongues of America’s beleaguered people.

The internet is saturated with news reports and video clips that tell the woeful tale.

How in the world did we get here?

The explanation is fairly simple. We allowed those who had an atheist bent to shove God out of sight.

In June of 2022, belief in God hit a new low in the United States, 81 percent, according to Gallup. This is a six percentage point drop from 2017. It is the lowest level in Gallup’s history.

By comparison, more than 90 percent of Americans believed in God in the years that spanned from 1944 through 2011.

In another study from Pew Research, which was released in January 2024, the largest “religious” group in the country is comprised of those Americans who say that they have no religious affiliation, a group that includes atheists, agnostics, and individuals who indicate that their religion is “nothing in particular.”

When asked to choose their religion, 28 percent checked “none.” In 2007 the “Nones,” as this group is referred to, were only at 16 percent.

In this latest Pew study, 17 percent of Nones identify as atheist, 20 percent as agnostic, and 63 percent as “nothing in particular.”

The trend is clear. The U.S. is drifting away from a belief in God and moving toward secular atheism. But the truth is human beings are hard-wired to worship God, and without Him something else will rush in to take His place. It could be money, power, self, and even the almighty state.

The almighty state is the big one. Eminent theologian Francis Schaeffer explained that “…humanists, having no god, must put something at the centre, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.”

Getting rid of God is a prerequisite to communism. The founders of communism saw this as the first step in leading a free country and its people toward the worship of government, and ultimately to an acceptance of a communist dictatorship.

It is not easy to indoctrinate people and convince them to give up their faith in God. As a matter of fact, it takes more faith to deny the existence of God than to believe in Him.

Minds have to be manipulated into believing that creation occurred without a Creator.

But scientists have found that space and time came into existence during a moment referred to as “The Big Bang.” There had to be a causal agent outside of space and time for this to happen. This, in essence, is a description of God Himself.

Communism insists that there is no Creator. No Prime Mover. No God. And bit by bit the would-be rulers strip God from every inch of the public square.

Without God, good and evil become arbitrary concepts. There is no accounting for right and wrong, which leaves the door wide open for the almighty state to step in and make all the determinations.

Without God, the world grows ice cold. It is a realm in which human dignity erodes away, and people ultimately find themselves enslaved to masters not of their own choosing.

What if we are in an escape room and we are about to discover that it’s not a game?

Time to find God again.

Makers of ‘Naked Gun’ Reboot Give David Zucker the Cold-shoulder

David Zucker is a longtime Hollywood director, producer, and screenwriter.

A hysterically funny guy, he is recognized in the entertainment industry as one of the chief sages of the spoof genre.

He fine-tuned his comedic filmmaking skills while working together with his brother Jerry and their fellow filmmaker Jim Abrahams.

The trio wrote and directed the breakthrough 1980 comedy flick “Airplane!,” which still stands as the archetypal film in the spoof category.

The same three filmmakers also created “The Naked Gun” franchise, which includes “The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!” (1988), “The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear” (1991), and “Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult” (1994).

All of the “Naked Gun” films feature the same stars portraying the same characters, including veteran actor and comedic genius Leslie Nielsen, the surprisingly adept comedic leading lady Priscilla Presley, stellar character actor George Kennedy, and of course, the infamous O.J. Simpson.

Zucker also directed the hit films “Scary Movie 3” and “Scary Movie 4.”

Following the trend in Hollywood of resurrecting successes of the past, execs at Paramount have decided to put together a remake of the original “Naked Gun.”

The casting of the remake is puzzling to say the least.

The lead is played by dramatic film actor Liam Neeson, who has the unenviable job of trying to fill Nielsen’s huge comedic shoes. The role is quite a switch for Neeson. After a long career as a character actor, he has become increasingly known as an action star.

Pamela Anderson, famous for her TV roles on “Home Improvement” and “Baywatch,” will play the character originally portrayed by Presley.

Oddly, the filmmakers involved in the reboot didn’t include Zucker in the creation or production of the upcoming movie.

Zucker and his partners had submitted a script to Paramount in 2018, and there were indications at the time that the studio liked it. However, Paramount somehow chose to go in a different direction.

The filmmaker was stunned when he heard that the reins for a “Naked Gun” reboot had been handed over to others.

“We are not excited about having the franchise given to other people. At the time, I couldn’t believe it because we thought we had a great script,” Zucker told TMZ.

He explained when it comes to the reboot, “I don’t have any control over it. I’m not involved, and they haven’t asked me for my help. It’s completely their concept, and they’re just going to go ahead and do it.”

At first glance it seems inexplicable that those involved in the reboot of the spoof film wouldn’t have wanted to consult with the master of the genre.

But then again Zucker hasn’t shied away from publicly expressing his political opinions, which don’t exactly align with Hollywood’s current penchant for wokeness.

Could this have something to do with the decision to bypass Zucker?

Hollywood is also a town that is enamored with atheism, and Zucker happens to be a believer.

He told the BBC, “I think there’s much more evidence that there is a God than that there isn’t. I don’t believe that Mother Teresa and Hitler go to the same place.”

He appears to be taking the rebuff in a lighthearted manner, and even displayed some of his comedic prowess in a remark about Simpson’s onscreen performance in the original “Naked Gun.”

“I found that O.J.’s acting was a lot like his murdering. He got away with it, but nobody believed him,” he quipped.

Funny how Zucker makes comedy look so easy. Any pro knows it’s not.

Failing to consult with him may turn out to be a really bad business decision.

And that’s no joke.

Wise Words of Wikipedia’s Co-founder Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger is an esteemed figure in the technology community.

Recognized as one of the early pioneers of the Internet, in 2001 he co-founded Wikipedia.

He is also credited with having come up with the site’s name, which is a combination of the word “encyclopedia” and the Hawaiian word “wiki,” which means “quick.”

He and almost all of the early tech-innovators back in the day envisioned a continuous “free and open” Internet, one in which the marketplace of ideas could forever run with abandon.

Sanger has a Ph.D. in philosophy, served as a professor at a number of universities, and remains one of the truly deep thinkers of the technology world.

Many view him as the chief source of the underlying philosophy of the World Wide Web.

In an interview with senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo, which was conducted for City Journal, he reacted to statements of former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who is now CEO of NPR.

Maher’s statements have created a major backlash. She has basically rejected Internet freedom, admitted that collaboration with government to censor content has been occurring, and seemingly embraces relativism over objective truth.

Acknowledging the inherent bias that exists in Wikipedia, Sanger stated, “The fact that certain points of view have been systematically silenced, is nothing new.”

Yet the Maher comments that were recently reported by Rufo appear to have left Sanger seriously befuddled.

“My jaw is on the floor,” he said.

The Wikipedia co-founder indicated that he was previously unaware of “just how radical-sounding Katherine Maher is.”

Wikimedia’s former CEO reportedly said that it was an error for Wikipedia to be “free and open” and also suggested that allowing the site to be managed in this manner has led to bad outcomes.

Maher also acknowledged that she has worked together with governments to suppress what she deems as “misinformation” appearing on the Wikipedia site.

Sanger was quick to remark, “It’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’”

He views her actions in collaborating with government to censor material as completely incongruent with the notion of a free Internet.

“When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open,” he noted.

He views it as outrageous that the site “has not just been taken over by the Left, but has been co-opted by and working with the government. That’s not a thing I would’ve imagined happening 20 years ago.”

What makes the situation even more untenable is the fact that now Maher is the head of a national broadcasting company that is financed by American taxpayers.

Sanger believes that she should be immediately removed from her position as CEO of NPR.

“If NPR wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away,” he said.

He remembers clearly the vision of the web at its inception.

“We didn’t have to have a special vision of a free and open Internet. That was the Internet,” he emphasized.

Those of us who were early Internet adopters believed that freedom would forever be its hallmark.

Sanger said that in those early days “the notion of restrictions on free speech was nowhere to be found.”

He additionally commented that “in the 1990s and 2000s, Democrats and Republicans were competing with each other to demonstrate how much in favor of free speech they were.”

In an attempt to enhance the understanding of the fragile nature of the net, the online founding father drew from his academic background.

“As a philosopher, I knew that this was not automatic, that it could easily change,” he explained, noting that “we could lose these freedoms.”

To paraphrase the words of one of our nation’s eminent founding fathers, it’s a free platform if you don’t bleep it.

TikTok’s Undue Influence on Our Youth

Kids, tweens, and teens are increasingly coming to the conclusion that they suffer from myriad of mental health maladies, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive compulsive tendencies, generalized anxiety, depression, autism spectrum disorder, and various other atypical conditions.

It turns out that influencers on TikTok and other social media platforms have been providing an assist in fanning the psychological flames.

Due to the fact that TikTok’s format favors brief content, the platform is generally unable to delve into the complexities of mental health conditions, which would be necessary in having any type of proper discussion.

The younger demographic commonly looks with admiration at an influencer who would share personal mental health information. Additionally, young users are frequently being prompted to engage in self-diagnosis with regard to their own mental health issues and challenges.

There are now plenty of laundry lists making the rounds that contain oversimplified and ambiguous disorders with which individuals might, and oftentimes do, identify.

In my opinion, based on my academic background and experience in the psychology and media fields, I believe there is a kind of collective mindset that has developed within our culture, particularly among our younger population.

It is one in which there has been a tendency to pathologize the customary mental, emotional, and behavioral state of each human being.

The categories of psychological disorders have been broadened, and the heightened diagnoses that are taking place are often tethered to pharmaceutical remedies.

Characterizing common human behavior as mental illness has been front and center since the DSM-V, the standard classification of mental disorders, was published in 2013. Since this time many psychologists and psychiatrists have contended that the DSM-V took what were ordinary human behavioral patterns and moods and relabeled them as abnormal pathologies.

Social media platforms have exacerbated the problem by leading individuals to believe they are suffering from a serious condition when they may not be.

TikTok in particular, and social media in general, pose a danger to a sizable number of younger users who are still coming to know themselves and to develop the self-confidence needed to succeed in life.

The algorithmically generated content on social media repeatedly exposes viewers to programmed content, causing impressionable young minds to undergo a reshaping.

The algorithms can then be used to place individuals into categories based on an individual’s preferences regarding various mental disorders. Those who are categorized may then be the subjects of targeted marketing, the life blood of the social media business.

Algorithms are designed to present content to viewers, which lines up with their pre-determined interests. This creates a type of “echo chamber” that supplies young users with material that coincides with their perceived mental health conditions. Completing the cycle, all of it works to reinforce users’ self-diagnoses.

There are numerous downsides to self-diagnoses under the guidance of TikTok.

However, one of the most insidious is when multiple people within a social group develop similar, medically inexplicable symptoms. The illnesses are called sociogenic.

The first known example of social media-induced sociogenic illness occurred in 2021. Neurologists experienced a sudden surge of patients, particularly teenage girls, who were exhibiting symptoms associated with Tourette syndrome, a genetic condition in which someone involuntarily displays a sudden, fast-paced and repetitive sound or movement.

Psychiatric professionals determined that the symptoms the teens were exhibiting were the result of the many hours spent watching viral TikTok videos of people with Tourette syndrome. The teens had self-diagnosed and had concluded that they also suffered from Tourette syndrome.

What’s the cure for the mind massage that is going on with our youth, making them think that they are all suffering from physical, mental, psychological, and emotional disorders?

I don’t claim to have an instant cure, but it wouldn’t hurt to ditch TikTok.

Then try focusing on others twice as much as self.

And lastly, hold on tight to a grateful heart.

Death by Doctor

Suicide Is Painless

(Theme from the 1970 film M*A*S*H)

Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it
If I please…

Lyrics by Michael Altman and music by Johnny Mandel

The Golden State, known for its beaches, mountains, theme parks, and entertainment industry, may soon become the go-to destination for anyone who would like a swift death, courtesy of a doctor.

California already allows people to end their own lives on the conditions that they have the mental capacity to decide, are expected to die within six months due to a terminal disease, and willingly administer the lethal dose themselves.

Back when California’s assisted suicide law was first implemented the public was assured that the vulnerable would be protected from undue influence or manipulation, which might persuade a person to take the life-ending option.

Additionally, doctors that refused to be involved in the deliberate snuffing out of human life were allowed to opt out.

However, left-wing legislators chipped away at the safeguards that were in place, and eventually conscience provisions that allowed physicians to avoid participation in the killing of patients were stripped away.

Now new legislation has been proposed by a California state senator that will allow an individual to choose to undergo doctor-assisted suicide without having had a terminal diagnosis.

The bill would permit individuals with various conditions and maladies to choose the life-ending alternative, even if potentially effective treatments are available.

It would also allow lethal drugs to be delivered intravenously, thereby eliminating the previous requirement that the lethal drugs had to be self-administered.

And here’s the topper. The proposed legislation would also permit those who are not California residents to hurry on over to the state and schedule their very own personal demise.

Sadly, California’s Democratic supermajority in the legislature gives the proposed bill a good chance of becoming law.

Despite being the antithesis of the Hippocratic Oath, leftist advocates of the so-called right-to-die ideology consider death by doctor to somehow be “health care.”

For those desiring assistance with the self-killing process, the previous requirements of having a terminal disease and possessing the appropriate mental capacity, needed to be struck; this according to a so-called fact sheet released by the sponsor of the proposed legislation.

The fact sheet also describes assisted suicide in a most Orwellian way, calling it “aid-in-dying medicine.”

As Europe and Canada have demonstrated, when the facilitation of death becomes a supposed treatment, it gives insurers, both private and public, a perverse incentive to deny health care and promote self-exit.

There have been numerous instances of individuals being coerced, convinced, and even guilted into opting for assisted death.

In an episode of the iconic TV series “The Twilight Zone” called “The Obsolete Man,”

a librarian is determined by the futuristic totalitarian state to be obsolete.

His occupation and his belief in God are enough justification to end his life.

In trademark fashion, host Rod Serling narrates the following at the beginning of the episode:

“You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be, but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom…”

The death by doctor procedure obliterates the precept that life is sacred.

When life is no longer considered sacred, a utilitarian society in which individuals are disposable at the whim of the state can be ushered in.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you your life isn’t worth living.

The One who made you and loves you says it is.

AI’s Rising Hollywood Star

In a town known for its artificiality, Artificial Intelligence (AI) appears to be a perfect Hollywood fit.

Last year AI language models and image creations truly dazzled the public. But they scared the unions half out of their wits.

As a matter of fact the Hollywood unions negotiated hard with the studios to get limitations put in place regarding the use of AI.

In its new three-year agreement, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) contract has a provision that forbids studios from replacing a DGA member with AI.

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) contract does not permit studios to use AI to replicate the likeness of a union member without obtaining (via a separate agreement) the member’s clear consent.

And the Writers Guild of America (WGA) Basic Agreement states, for purposes of credit and compensation, that any material written by AI will not be considered “literary material.”

However, it appears as though mere contractual provisions will not be enough to prevent AI technology from becoming a major future Hollywood player.

The latest anxiety inducer is the advent of text-to-video, a production-disrupting technology that allows film footage to be created without the involvement of writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, and the like.

AI models have already demonstrated a virtual capability to pen screenplays, create images, and produce music, solely from written commands.

Videos illustrating the extraordinary capabilities of AI have already been posted on the Internet, including a trailer that features Jared Leto promoting his band Thirty Seconds to Mars and a parody of the film “Ocean’s Eleven.”

While numerous AI technology projects have popped up in the entertainment realm, OpenAI’s Sora has gotten the biggest reaction. After having exclusively been fed only written instructions, the new model has been able to create stunningly realistic high quality short videos.

It seems inevitable that the technology will soon be converting entire movie scripts into complete feature-length films via an individual’s simple typing on a computer keyboard.

Sora’s demos sparked justified fears that the technology threatens future employment within the Hollywood creative community.

Filmmaker Tyler Perry specifically cited Sora as the reason for the cancellation of his proposed $800 million studio expansion project in Atlanta, Georgia.

“Being told that it [Sora] can do all of these things is one thing, but actually seeing the capabilities, it was mind-blowing,” Perry said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.

“There’s got to be some sort of regulations in order to protect us. If not, I just don’t see how we survive,” he added.

In its apparent effort to secure fame and fortune, OpenAI has reportedly been wooing Hollywood executives to use Sora as their preferred filmmaking tool.

According to Bloomberg, the AI company is now setting up a series of meetings with major studios, media executives and talent agencies in order to pitch its automated video content creation machine.

In an apparent effort to pave the way for future business transactions, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was spotted hanging out with key Hollywood players and was even in attendance at some of Oscar’s A-list parties.

A spokesperson for OpenAI told Bloomberg the following:

“OpenAI has a deliberate strategy of working in collaboration with industry through a process of iterative deployment – rolling out AI advances in phases in order to ensure safe implementation and to give people an idea of what’s on the horizon.”

Another way of phrasing “iterative deployment” might be a slow and steady takeover of Hollywood.

AI’s growing entertainment industry involvement will most certainly usher in plenty of lawyers and lawsuits. There has already been a sizable number of legal actions filed against AI companies, most of which assert copyright infringement.

When the output of AI has an obvious resemblance to an original work, the attendant lawsuits frequently have outcomes that are similar to those of traditional copyright claims.

Other cases involve a focus upon and an analysis of the time frame in which the protected works were uploaded into the AI technology as training data.

The Congress and the courts will have to wrestle with the notion of copyright protection as well as additional intellectual property rights issues that arise from the unauthorized uses of AI.

As Perry has suggested, guardrails must be put in place.

But the question is, Will this occur before the Hollywood Walk of Fame turns into a virtual one?