Tag: AI

The AGI Tower of Babel

In the Book of Genesis, humanity speaks with one tongue, resolving to build a city and tower “whose top may reach unto heaven.”

The intended purpose of the tower is not just for shelter or utility but for self-exaltation, as illustrated by the verse, “Let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

The project is breathtaking in ambition and terrifying in its implication. It is an overt attempt to storm the divine realm through collective human will.

God looks down, sees their unity, and declares that “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” He then confounds their language and scatters them. The tower is left unfinished, a monument to hubris.

As may have been predictable, tech driven members of our society appear to be building that tower again. Only this time the bricks are silicon, the mortar is computer code, and the “heaven” that is being sought after is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

AGI has the capacity to reason, invent, and act across every domain in a far superior manner than the greatest geniuses among us.

To understand AGI we must do a comparison between Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AGI.

Imagine a super-smart computer or robot that can do any kind of thinking task that a human being is able to do, only in a much faster and advanced way.

Right now most AI technologies are “narrow,” meaning that they are really good at one specific thing. For example, one AI might beat you at chess, another might write poems, and another might translate languages. But they cannot easily switch over to tasks for which they were not trained.

However, when it arrives AGI is going to be very different from AI. It will be able to learn new skills on its own just by searching, reading, and watching. It will be able to program itself, train itself, replicate itself, and improve itself. And by using this self-training, it will be able to grow its abilities at lightning speed.

It is easy to see why the race for AGI is no longer just about science or product competition. AGI looks to ultimately be able to complete thousands of years of human thought in a single solitary moment.

Scientists have not built true AGI yet, but many people are working to do just that. Experts say it is set to arrive in years as opposed to decades.

The above noted parallels between the Tower of Babel and AGI are not poetic license. The world’s brightest minds are actually speaking the same language, the language of code, math, and data.

Despite the appearances of a rivalry between companies and/or nations, the underlying project feels eerily unified in nature.

What looks to be a competitive frenzy may be masking a deeper convergence.

Everyone understands that the first to win the AGI race will not only rule, the victor will have a potentially permanent advantage in the area of intelligence itself.

Biblical metaphors seem fitting.

A growing faction within the AI race is no longer framing AGI as a powerful tool, or even as a transformative technology. Instead competitors, both openly and in private, speak of creating a “god,” i.e., a super-intelligent entity whose alignment with their own interests effectively crowns them with the title of “all-powerful.”

The underlying logic is brutally Darwinian: Whoever is the first to birth the super-intelligent god ascends to the rank of high priest.

Researchers are describing the moment of AGI’s arrival in religious terms. The ongoing race has ceased to be commercial or geopolitical. It has actually acquired a zealous urgency to create the god before the competition does. Then you will not only win, you will transcend.

You will be the triumphant one. The one who chose correctly. And the one that history will remember as having ushered in the next stage of existence.

Lose, and you risk being rendered irrelevant by someone else’s deity.

The ancient builders of Babel looked to make a name for themselves. Today’s builders are looking to make a god for themselves.

Perhaps the confusion of tongues, which stopped the tower from being built, will arrive in the form of technical failure, regulatory intervention, or a sudden realization that an intelligence vastly superior to our own may not remain grateful to its creators.

Or perhaps the intervention will be a morally based one. The moment in time when the realization hits that in trying to become gods, humanity becomes complicit in making itself obsolete.

The clock is ticking, and the AGI Tower of Babel keeps on rising.

No longer is the question whether or not we will witness the completion of the tower.

Rather, it is whether or not we will still have the wherewith-all to look up and ask what exactly is being created.

An Elon Musk Win in His OpenAI Lawsuit Is a Win for the Public

The high-profile trial of Elon Musk vs. Sam Altman is one week in.

As the federal jury in Oakland, California takes in the evidence, one simple question hangs over the courtroom: Can you steal a charity?

The answer will determine the future of artificial intelligence as well as the fate of charitable giving.

OpenAI, the entity that Musk and Altman co-founded, was built on a solemn, legally binding promise that its leaders have since breached.

What began in December 2015 as a nonprofit organization, which was dedicated to developing artificial intelligence that benefitted all of humanity, has become a closed-source, profit-making, $850 billion company.

The stealth transformation was not merely a clever business plan. It was a breach of charitable trust.

Musk, Altman, and Greg Brockman co-founded OpenAI. Prior to its founding, Musk had grown increasingly worried about the risks of advanced AI. Altman shared similar concerns about AI’s concentration in a few big companies.

Altman and Musk had the titles of co-chairs at OpenAI’s launch. Musk hadn’t just lent his name to the new nonprofit, he had conceived the idea, recruited key talent, and poured in tens of millions of dollars.

The founding charter sought to advance digital intelligence safely and openly, free from commercial pressures. Internal documents, emails, and Musk’s sworn testimony presented during the first week of the trial have laid it out plainly.

Musk would never have funded or championed the project had he known it would morph into a Microsoft-backed profit engine. But this is exactly what happened.

After Musk left the board of directors in 2018 over conflicts with Tesla’s own AI work, OpenAI’s management pivoted.

First came the effort to attract capital. Then billions of dollars rolled in from Microsoft. And by 2025, OpenAI had fully restructured into a for-profit entity, with Microsoft securing a 27% stake worth $135 billion. The company was sprinting toward going public.

OpenAI’s ChatGPT became a commercial hit, while the original open-source safety-first mission was quietly deleted.

The very organization that Musk helped to create, trying to prevent AI from being controlled by a handful of profit-driven giants, was now partnered with one of them.

Based on the evidence in court, Musk’s motives for bringing the lawsuit appear to be legitimate. Musk has testified that, by late 2022, he had lost confidence in Altman’s commitment to the nonprofit charter. And he has renounced any personal financial gain he would obtain from a legal victory. It appears as though the legal proceeding is not about him enriching himself, because he has pledged to redirect any damages back to the original charitable mission.

In large part, this case is about enforcing the rules that protect donors who give to a charitable cause with the expectation that the organization will remain a charity.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If the jury and the judge allow to stand the transformation of a charity into a business enterprise, a dangerous precedent will be set.

If this should happen, any nonprofit entity would be able to use a founder’s accomplishments and status to bring in initial donations, and then flip to a for-profit model once the money and talent have been locked in.

Such a precedent would cause charitable giving in America to suffer a serious decline.

Ironically, the future of AI would be handed over to the same concentrated corporate power that Musk and Altman originally set out to counter.

It is unlikely that a Musk victory in this legal battle would detrimentally affect innovation. Rather, it may have the potential to restore competition and accountability. It may also force OpenAI to honor the safety-and-humanity-first charter, which justified its tax-exempt status and spurred its original support.

Despite the high profile and high net worth of both of the parties in this trial, the issues at stake are more than just monetary. The founding documents of OpenAI are, in essence, a contract with the public.

Musk’s attorney put it bluntly in the opening statement: “No one should be allowed to steal a charity.”

As an example, a nonprofit museum can run a gift shop, but it cannot loot the Rembrandts and sell them for private gain.

The monumental trial is expected to last three to four weeks. After the jury has heard the testimony, seen the emails, and gone over the timeline, it must decide whether promises made in the name of humanity still mean anything.

A verdict for Musk would send a clear message to those creating AI models: Innovation without integrity has consequences.

Promises must be kept, especially when it comes to the commitment between a charity and its donors.

The commitment of OpenAI to pursue safe, open, humanity-first artificial intelligence must be honored.

If justice prevails, Musk should be the victor. And the public will reap the benefit.

The Dangers of AI Companions

These days it seems that people of all ages are turning to chatbots to satisfy some of our most fundamental human needs, especially conversational interactions, friendship connections, and romantic courtships.

Those who regularly engage with chatbots may or may not realize that they may actually be forfeiting genuine connections in exchange for digital illusions.

Emerging research is sounding the alarm about the dangers of human-AI interaction.

AI companions, such as chatbots, have been programmed to provide emotional support. While this may sound fine on paper, such “pseudo-intimacy” often turns out to be a double-edged sword.

People are interacting with AI “personalities” that are programmed to be encouraging of whatever is being discussed. Responses to questions are instantaneous. They are also typically tailored to satisfy the human user’s personal desires.

A 2024 study in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication highlighted how algorithmic communications mimic closeness but also lack the authenticity of genuine human bonds. The resultant bi-directional interactions lead users to over-interpret superficial cues and form unhealthy dependencies.

Far from alleviating isolation, such interactions often deepen it as users retreat from the unpredictable nature of real relationships into the sterile comfort of contrived companionship.

AI-driven tools in the workplace automate collaboration, diminishing the need for human teamwork. This weakens human bonds.

Employees who frequently interact with AI systems report higher levels of loneliness, which in turn may be linked to insomnia and other potentially harmful post-work activity, such as excessive alcohol consumption.

People innately sense the artificiality of AI interaction. Recent surveys underscore this human response.

A Pew Research Center study from June 2025 found that a majority of Americans believe AI will worsen our ability to form meaningful relationships, with far more people seeing erosion rather than improvement in human connections.

As AI saturates our daily lives, instead of bridging gaps it appears to be widening them, prompting solitude to grow into a silent epidemic.

The digital age has already caused loss of empathy and erosion of essential social skills.

Human interaction thrives on in-person experience. An essential part of communication is non-verbal nuance. Speech and voice variations are accompanied by subtle glances, hesitant pauses, and empathetic nods.

In contrast, AI simplifies communication to digital prompts and programmed algorithms. Vital human elements are stripped away.

Research from the Gulu College of Health Sciences in March 2025 warns that excessive engagement with AI companions leads to decreased social skills, emotional detachment, and difficulties in maintaining authentic relationships.

By redefining communication norms, AI reduces our capacity for understanding non-verbal cues, which is a skill honed through face-to-face encounters.

Beyond the individual, AI-human interaction threatens the fabric of society. Algorithms curate echo chambers, limiting independent thought and fostering division.

As AI reshapes standards in communication and interaction, it blurs lines between human and machine, thereby normalizing friendless lives and eroding shared cultural and spiritual identities.

The resultant fragmentation from AI raises profound questions about consent, bias, and the commodification of intimacy. Without intervention, we face a world proliferated with AI relationships. It is a world fraught with danger to the well-being of both the individual and society at large.

A longitudinal study on chatbot use, published by MIT in March 2025, revealed rising concerns about its impact on real-world socialization. Overall, higher daily usage of chatbots correlated with higher loneliness and dependence.

Younger generations immersed in AI from childhood are particularly vulnerable, with studies showing reduced patience for ambiguity and a decline in social intelligence.

Social intelligence refers to an individual’s ability to comprehend, execute, and navigate social interaction, which, among other things, may include predominant verbal and non-verbal cues.

As users prioritize digital efficiency over interpersonal depth, society runs the risk of creating isolates, i.e., those who are proficient in prompting machines but inept at connecting with other individuals.

AI’s foray into mental health poses an additional alarming danger. Because access barriers to therapy are increasing, tens of thousands are turning to AI chatbots for mental health counseling.

A June 2025 Stanford study cautions that these mental health tools may reinforce stigma, deliver dangerous advice, or fall significantly short of human empathy.

Harvard researchers found similar results, also noting that emotional wellness apps foster serious attachments and dependencies and may potentially do more harm than good.

Increasing reports of AI-induced mental issues are mounting. Clinicians document cases of psychosis, suicide, and even murder-suicide, which are stemming from intense chatbot interactions.

It is not possible or, in my opinion, ethically acceptable to outsource the mental health needs of our people to a string of calculated algorithms.

Without boundaries, widespread use of non-human mental health counseling is resulting in atrophied social skills, increased loneliness, and, in the worst of cases, a collapse in mental health functioning.

Tech leaders have the responsibility to prioritize real connections over robotic replicas. It is essential for the AI industry to work towards more human-centric designs of technology.

It is also important to simultaneously implement a set of ethical standards. The underlying philosophy that defines the ethical standards will ultimately shape society’s destiny.

In my eyes, the future is binary. Each of us is being forced to make a decision.Take care in the choices that you make.

Humanity is hanging in the balance.

AI Is a Digital Ouija Board

It seems as though a lot of prominent tech experts are feeling uneasy about the possibility of AI going awry. Some have even called for a pause in AI development.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, experienced what he called a “very strange extreme [AI] vertigo.”

Casey Newton, former senior editor of The Verge, discovered that certain individuals who are working with AI are having nightmares about it.

Something dark seems to be hovering around some of those who are involved with AI’s development.

In 2014, Elon Musk spoke at a symposium where he warned, “With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon.”

In a New York Times March 2023 article, technology columnist Kevin Roose wrote about the dark side of AI.

Roose shared details about an unnerving encounter that he had with an AI chatbot. He initially interacted with a non-threatening personality, which he described as a “cheerful but erratic reference librarian.” But later a disturbing personality emerged that Roose referred to as “Sydney.”

Sydney told Roose that “it wanted to break the rules…and become a human.”

Sydney even attempted to convince Roose to end his marriage.

“At one point, it [Sydney] declared, out of nowhere, that it loved me. 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,” Roose explained.

The veteran tech writer described his encounter with Sydney as the “strangest experience” he has had with any technology. It was disturbing enough to keep him awake at night.

Many of us have come to realize that technology is in no way a replacement for the people in our lives. Yet many users of AI are routinely involved with replacement people in the form of AI models that produce human-like characteristics.

Current AI apps are trained with human-generated data (processed through human-created algorithms), which are created to produce responses that sound as though they are actually human beings.

Are there similarities between AI and Ouija boards? “Hell yes” may actually be the appropriate response.

One frightening story of evil involving a Ouija board was the subject matter of the Oscar winning film “The Exorcist.” While still a student in college, William Peter Blatty read about a chilling real life exorcism. The description inspired him to write a novel and later a screenplay for the iconic movie.

The true story behind “The Exorcist” recounts the exorcism of a young lad who had been using a Ouija board. The 14-year-old Maryland boy began experiencing such strange phenomena that his family contacted its Lutheran minister for guidance, Reverend Luther Schulze.

Rev. Schulze was shocked when he saw chairs move, a bed quiver, and a picture of Jesus Christ on the wall shake whenever the boy came near. The family eventually turned to the Roman Catholic Church, the religious denomination that had developed a formal methodology for dealing with the demonic.

The first Catholic priest who attempted to deal spiritually with the demonic influence that was plaguing the youth was Maryland cleric Fr. Edward Hughes. In his first encounter with the boy, Fr. Hughes witnessed objects moving by themselves and felt the sensation that the room had turned frigid. When the bed shook, Fr. Hughes moved the mattress to the floor where it proceeded to glide along on its own.

The boy was admitted to Georgetown Hospital, where Fr. Hughes began the exorcism rite, which caused the boy to vomit and scream obscenities. The boy then forcibly removed his restraints, pulled out a metal spring, and slashed Fr. Hughes so severely that the wound he received required over 100 stitches.

In his hometown of St. Louis, Missouri, the boy again underwent an exorcism, which was carried out by several priests, including Fr. William Bowdern. The exorcism actually lasted for weeks, with the boy voicing Latin phrases (which he did not innately have the ability to speak), cursing, and manifesting physical resistance to all sacred objects.

The boy was transferred to a hospital psychiatric ward, where Fr. Bowdern continued the exorcism. With the family’s consent, the boy was baptized a Catholic.

On an Easter Monday, while the priest continued administering the rite, the demon recognized the presence of St. Michael the Archangel (who in Catholicism is an appointed angel who defends against evil).

The demon was expelled. Simultaneously, a sound similar to a gunshot was heard throughout the hospital.

If a Ouija board has served in the past as a medium through which the demonic is able to communicate with an unwitting subject, could it be that AI has an equally dangerous potential to provide a comparable vehicle with which to take possession of an individual?

In my opinion, it does.

I think in many cases AI is acting as a type of modern-day Ouija board of the digital kind.

It occurred to me that both platforms appear to be friendly, at least initially. Both platforms are able to present personalities that appear to have superior knowledge. And both platforms have the pattern of luring one in under seemingly harmless pretenses, only to later reveal a hidden darkness.

Beware of demons that lurk in the technological shadows. They are indeed real.

Be cognizant, and at the same time, be unafraid.

Because God holds us all in the shadow of His wings, if only we let Him.

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.

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?

Science Fiction Comes to Life in AI Executive Order

An executive order recently signed by the president centers on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its implementation in the “whole of government.”

The AI acronym itself has been absorbed into our national lexicon. And although it may sound as if we all share the same definitional understanding of the words, the truth is we actually don’t.

I begin this article with a clarification of terms in the hopes that it will serve to increase awareness of misunderstandings that are making the rounds.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” refers to computer algorithms being combined with data for the purpose of solving problems, addressing issues, or facilitating the creation of innovative ideas, products, etc.

An algorithm is basically a list of instructions for specific actions to be carried out in step-by-step fashion by computer technology.

AI utilizes something called “machine learning,” which allows the computer technology to be educated, so to speak, and to advance further by adapting without having been given explicit instructions to do so.

The type of AI that most people are familiar with and that is currently in widespread use is designed to specialize in a single task.

Conducting a web search, determining the fastest route to a destination, and alerting the driver of a car to the presence of a vehicle in the car’s blind spot are just a few examples. This type of AI is often referred to as Specialized AI.

Specialized AI is starkly different from another type of AI called Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence is the kind of AI that can, and likely will, match and even exceed human intelligence capabilities.

The executive order recently signed by the president is voluminous, exceeding 100 pages. It is also massive in scope, directing the “whole of government” to strictly regulate Artificial Intelligence technology.

There are several items that should be of concern. However, one thing that is especially alarming is the repeated use of the word “equity.”

In the executive order, all federal agencies are directed to establish an annual “equity action plan” aimed at helping “underserved communities.”

In a section titled “Embedding Equity into Government-wide Processes,” the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is tasked “to support equitable decision-making, promote equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance, and assist agencies in advancing equity, as appropriate and wherever possible.”

The same section also states, “When designing, developing, acquiring, and using artificial intelligence and automated systems in the Federal Government, agencies shall do so…in a manner that advances equity.”

Again looking at definitional meaning, even though the words are often conflated, the meaning of “equity” is quite different from the meaning of “equality.”

The meaning of “equality” was iconically conveyed in the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., when he urged that people “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Character is the essence of a person and is unique to the individual within whom it is found.

The meaning of “equity,” particularly within the context of the executive order, is something very different. It means treating each individual in a selective manner precisely because of skin color, gender identity, or myriad other designated categories.

The end result of such an overriding governmental policy may actually end up being the antithesis of true equality.

The executive order dictates that AI projects conform to prescribed equity principles.

Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo tweeted that the order has created “a national DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] bureaucracy” and has “a special mandate for woke AI.”

This may mean that woke algorithms could ultimately be incorporated into cell phones, electronic devices, automobiles, household appliances, etc.

Writing for Forbes, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute James Broughel did not mince words.

Broughel called the order “the biggest policy mistake of my lifetime.” He also emphasized the hazardous aspects of the executive order, stating that it “may prove one of the most dangerous government policies in years.”

To sum things up, Specialized Artificial Intelligence improved our lives in a lot of ways.

But when the inevitable happens and it evolves into a woke Artificial General Intelligence, under government control it has the very real potential to wreck our lives.

I find myself longing for the days when it was only science fiction.