Is AI Good for Humanity?
Part 1
Is AI Good for Humanity? Part 1
There seems to be an ongoing controversy over the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the data centers which will power them. The strange thing is that this seems to be one dispute which is not divided into the Left vs Right. Many on the left and right support the development and others on both sides are against, so we have the left vs the left and the right vs the right in addition to them being against each other.
As if we do not have enough division in this country, we now have an item that divides both parties.
Let us look at the situation with some reasoning and discover whether AI along with the data centers will be good or bad for humanity.
One thing we do know for sure is that from any cursory study of history is that there’s always strong resistance to new technology, especially if it changes life as we know it or eliminates certain jobs.
Perhaps the best current example of the two sides view of this subject was a debate between Tucker Carlson and Kevin O’Leary posted May 13, 2026 on YouTube. Tucker saw many things that were evil while O’Leary saw an overall positive outcome.
I found it humorous that one of Tucker’s biggest complaints were how data centers looked. He said this:
“There’s probably nothing uglier on planet Earth than a data center. It’s a physical atrocity. It’s an offense against God and nature… It is a scar upon the Earth.”
I was curious as to what the ugliest thing on the planet looked like, so I Googled “data centers” and looked at pictures of a dozen or so. It turns out most look like buildings in the industrial section of any major city. Some are long rectangular buildings that look like they could be used to manufacture RV’s, cars or even rockets. Others look like large computer memory chips. Just like any industrial building, they are not built for beauty but for effective use. I couldn’t find any that I would consider ugly.
The fact that Tucker considers them so ugly that they are “an offense against God and nature,” tells me that he begins the debate with an extreme bias against them.
Then, O’Leary has a lot of money invested in AI projects, so he is likely biased the other direction.
Overall, here I do not think Tucker has a point on ugliness, as the data centers are mostly large rectangular buildings that look similar to thousands of others in the country used for manufacturing and warehousing.
One of Tucker’s biggest objections was that AI was going to take our jobs. “you’re not going to have a job, that’s true,” he says and then complains we will have nothing to do but eat, “the point of living, of course, is not to eat. Eating is a prerequisite to living, but it’s not the point. The point of living is to create.”
So Tucker is afraid that so many jobs will be taken that the only function left for us mere mortals is to eat. To this, O’Leary gave a common sense reply:
“Well, you know, every time technology advances, it creates new opportunities that we’re not foreseen prior because you don’t know the direction of new tech. You know, think about if you and I, because we were actually around in the late 80s contemplating what new jobs would be created by the internet. And look at what’s happened. It’s created millions of jobs and advanced all kinds of technologies and changed the way we live to the better.”
To this Tucker gave the amazing reply that things were better before the internet and things have “gotten worse at exactly the period in history that the internet was formed.”
Tucker expresses the concern of many when he talks about losing jobs, but how many, if given the choice, would press a button and make the internet go away?
Very few, because the benefits of the internet far outweigh the detriments.
The question now is whether the creation of AI and Data centers will be more of a benefit than a detriment. What many leave out of the argument is that every advance in technology can be used for good or evil. Whether or not anything is used for the benefit of humanity depends on the freewill of those involved in creating and using it.
In the latter part of the nineteenth century, an engineering upstart named Nikola Tesla invented the alternating current, a much superior delivery system than Edison’s DC current, concerning which Edison and the jobs of many employees were depending. There was no way that the DC current would prevail because AC could be efficiently transmitted across great distances using transformers, whereas Edison’s DC could only travel about a mile before losing strength.
Edison was a smart man and probably realized the superiority of AC, but he had a lot invested in the DC current and a lot of jobs were at stake. He decided that the best way to prevail over Tesla was to scare the people into rejecting AC.
Edison arranged to conduct gruesome public demonstrations where they electrocuted stray dogs, cats, calves, and horses using AC.
The message was clear: “See, if you allow wiring for AC in your house, then your favorite pet could be fried to a painful death by this dangerous alternating current.”
That had an effect but it did not stop the march of the AC current. Edison had to do something more drastic. He then did something that defied his own moral principles. He was against the death penalty, yet supported the creation of the eclectic chair. He figured that once the public became aware that the alternating current could fry a person’s brain that no one would want one in their home.
In 1890, William Kemmler became the first person put to death with the electric chair with Edison’s blessing.
To Edison’s dismay it turned out to be a minor setback, as the advantages of AC were so obvious that people’s fears were overcome.
We still realize that a large amount of AC voltage can kill, but we have the transmission and wiring controlled to the extent that we all sit comfortably each night using the alternating current to light, heat and air condition our homes as well as enable all communication through the vast internet.
We now look back on Edison’s scare tactics with amusement. He obviously knew better but was trying to protect his business interests and the jobs of his associates.
As it turned out, Edison did lose many jobs to the better technology, but the end result was the greater technology created millions of new jobs. In the end, the good generated by the alternating current far outweighed the bad.
One of the most significant battles manifested by new technology involved the Luddites.
The Luddites who appeared at the beginning of the industrial revolution in England. This activist group was started by weavers who protested incoming steam-powered weaving machines that would replace their jobs. Even though the advance of steam over human power would greatly benefit society as a whole, the Luddites wanted “alternatives” to the powerful and dangerous steam technology.
At first, they staged peaceful protests, but when they saw that the new technology was making inroads and their way of life was threatened, violent protesting and sabotage became prevalent. The Luddites resorted to attacking and destroying the steam-powered looms by any means they had, not caring for the added expense incurred to both the manufacturers as well as consumers.
What made things more difficult for progress was that these anti-technology advocates were not the dummies as some historians portray. Many of them were well educated and had considerable political influence. They were also good at public relations and managed to get a large portion of the public to sympathize with their cause. Many of the farmers, common people and even manufacturers who would benefit by the new technology secretly assisted them.
Fortunately for civilization, the English government came down hard on the Luddites when they broke the law and when violence ensued, the authorities greatly increased the crackdown.
Despite their political connections and public support, the rule of law prevailed, and within a decade, the new prosperity brought about by the steam-powered technology caused a waning of support for the Luddites, and the opposition to the advance of civilization turned into support.
Now, over two hundred years later, people of this age look back on the Luddites and assume they must have been stupid, backward people to oppose such an obvious benefit. In fact, the term “luddite” is sometimes used to identify a dim-witted person who is confused by modern technology or thought.
The fact is, the real Luddites were fairly intelligent. They look dim-witted by our standards because they were deceived by their own self-interest and belief systems.
Time and time again technology has produced change that has been resisted by many thinking their world will end, jobs will be gone forever and not replaced, but in each event the benefit has outweighed any short-term pain.
When crude oil replaced whale oil the whalers cried foul – that their jobs would be gone. But not only were more jobs created, but the whales were saved from extinction.
When the car replaced the horse and buggy, again everyone who made carriages and raised horses feared for their jobs yet again car manufacturing led to many more jobs than ever. The additional benefit was that our city streets were no longer smelly and unsightly from horse dung which caused disease.
When television came on board many thought people would no longer listen to the radio and all jobs related to it would disappear, but radio adapted and continued and many new jobs were created for television.
In every case, technological innovation does change things and interrupts some lives, but it generally brings more convenience, more and different jobs, and enhances life for the whole.
Why do many think it will be different this time?
Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. – Friedrich Nietzsche
Is AI Good for Humanity? Part 2
AI and Creativity
The skeptic may acquiesce and admit that in the past progress did indeed bring an overall benefit and many times did result in more jobs gained than lost. “But this time it is different. This time we have a situation where AI will be able to take over just about every job there is. Then what are we going to do – just sit around and eat as Tucker says?”
O’Leary accurately pointed out that we had similar fears in the past but were unable to see the scope of future benefits. But when all was said and done few would want to go back in the past and be deprived of the progress made. Who now would want to live without the internet, the automobile or the AC current in our homes? Not many. Yet in the beginning there was resistance to them all, as well as just about any advance in technology you can think of.
But could it really be different this time? After all, AI has the potential to replace just about every job there is. That has never happened before.
Yes, it is indeed true that AI has the potential to replace just about every job that currently exists, but the question to be asked is this. Why do most people with jobs do not want them replaced?
The answer today is the same that was given by the Luddites in the past. They didn’t want to lose their jobs because it was such fun work. Manual weaving was really pretty repetitions and boring. But for the times they made good money and the loss of income was the main concern.
And how many people today only keep their job because of the need for income? How many would quit tomorrow if they won the lottery?
Most people would quit. There are a few getting creative satisfaction from their jobs and may stay even if they had a windfall, but I’d put that number below 10% of the population. Most would be happy to have their hands free to go on to more creative work of their choice.
I find it interesting that one of Tucker’s main worries was that AI would stifle creativity by replacing jobs, but to the contrary many find that their jobs interfere with creativity. I have certainly found this to be the case in my own life. I was born with a desire to be creative but, like many others, have been forced to make a living in jobs that distract from creativity rather than encouraging it.
When we reached a point that we could mostly retire my wife expressed a concern about all the extra free time she would have. She figured she may need to get a job just to have something to do with her time.
As it tuned out, she has found plenty to do. She enjoys spending extra time with her grandkids, learning lots of things about health, preparing Zoom presentations and numerous other things she enjoys. I reminded her the other day about how thought she needed a job instead of retiring and she laughed about how silly that now sounds.
Yes, AI has the potential to replace many jobs, but most of these jobs are boring for us and will allow us to move on to greater creativity, not less.
Keep in mind that job replacement will not occur all at once, but over period of time. In fact, job replacement by technology has been going on for hundreds of years and is merely continuing. Fortunately, so far, jobs being replace by technology, though inconvenient for those losing their jobs, has produced an overall benefit for society.
There are quite a number of jobs crying out for replacement. How about many in third world countries like the children mining for the so-called blood diamonds, or the Chinese youth working in recycling that releases toxic chemicals injuring their health? Or how about many jobs that are dangerous – like finding land mines and diffusing them?
Then there are many jobs that are just plain boring like field work or picking fruit. The first wave of AI taking over jobs will be in mostly the undesirable work that we do not want to do ourselves.
But won’t it go after creative work and discourage our creativity?
I submit that it is more likely to enhance creativity.
One of the most creative things you can do is to write. I have been interested in writing music, fiction and non fiction for many years and the greatest obstacle I have faced is the need to do boring work to make a living. There have been many times that I was too exhausted at the end of the day to read anything let alone do some creative writing.
Before the internet when I did write and needed to do some research I had to often go to the library and sometimes either order or buy books related to the subject. Researching a subject often took weeks.
Then the internet came along, with Google, and I found my research time was greatly diminished. What used to take weeks could now be done with Google in a couple hours.
Now with AI, instead of doing searches that take hours I can just ask AI to do the work for me, and I can have my answers in a couple minutes. This allows me to spend more time being creative rather than in research. AI is not taking away my creativity but allowing me to spend more time in creativity rather than boring research.
So far, technology has done nothing to discourage my creative side but has only increased my ability to focus on what matters most in getting the job done.
Is it possible that AI will be able to write stories better than famous authors or music better than our famous singers? I do not see this happening any time soon has true creativity is the most difficult of all things to reproduce with technology. Instead, I see the best of future works being a collaborative effort between writers and AI. A writer may ask AI to come up with some plot ideas. The writer could pick one go with it and ask AI for suggestions as the writing moves along. The final result could be something better than either AI or the writer could do alone.
At the present moment few are complaining about AI taking away their creativity. Instead, they are using their creative side to direct AI in fun directions or to assist in their own creative endeavors.
If you see some cute AI created cat video, do you really think that AI created and posted it all on its own? Of course not. Some guy came up with the idea and directed AI to produce it. It probably took a number of efforts to get the video to the quality desired by the human, but then when the creative human was satisfied with it, he or she posted it and many comment: “That’s just AI.”
It wasn’t just AI, but a creative and collaborative effort.
There is no denying that AI will replace many jobs and it will perhaps change civilization more than any other innovation before it. Next let us look into the future to see what that may be like.
Trust in God and do something. – Mary Lyon
Is AI Good for Humanity? Part 3
AI and Jobs
Let us examine how AI may be integrated into various professions.
First let us look at attorneys. In this profession AI could replace research assistants and secretaries though most large law firms are likely to keep a couple humans in place to oversee the process.
Most people will still want a human to speak to and represent them, but the attorneys through AI will have unlimited facts and casefiles at their disposal which should give customers more bang for their buck.
AI will create big changes in the medical profession. They will be able to diagnose patients and even perform complicated surgeries as good or better than humans. But don’t expect complete human replacement here. Most people will still want advice from a real human on health issues.
In the future if you go to a regular doctor’s appointment you are likely to only encounter two humans. The first will be the office manager and the second will be the doctor. All the services and procedures before you see the doctor will be handed by robotics. They will weigh you, take your blood pressure, ask you questions about your condition and have everything ready for the doctor when he appears. He will look over all information provided by AI and then give you his or her advice.
Many delicate surgeries will be performed by AI, but even here the process will be overseen by a human, for the surgery itself will be prescribed by a human.
One of the greatest benefits of AI will be care for the elderly, and others suffering a severe physical incapacity.
Reasonable care for the elderly can be very expensive and can quickly drain bank accounts. The cost of nursing home quality care is around $10,000 per month.
Other the other hand, if residents function well but needs a small amount of daily help they may need an assisted living facility which costs around $5,000 to $6,000 a month.
Then if they are elderly and able to function well, but cautious about living alone, they may go to an independent living community. These typically cost over $3,000 a month.
AI will be a great benefit for people in all three of these categories. With the assistance of AI all but the most serious residents will be able to stay in their own homes. Elon Musk foresees a day when a human like robot will be available for below $20,000 each. Such a device will be able to provide all health care that is necessary around the clock. It will be able to provide meals, feed patients and even change diapers when necessary.
After the initial purchase, assisted elderly care costs will go to close to zero. Then when the person passes the robot will still maintain its value and can be sold to recover most of the investment.
Mining will be another field drastically affected by AI, and in many ways that is a good thing. It is an unhealthy and often dangerous profession. Coal and asbestos mining are particularly affected. AI robotics can take on these jobs and remove the danger.
Then in third world countries the health problems are even more pervasive and with much younger people. Often we find children assisting in dangerous mining work, breathing polluted air.
Recycling of precious metals and rare earth elements will be another great job for AI. With some elements the only recycling done is in foreign countries with slave labor type wages. In some cases the recycling process creates polluted air which causes many health problems.
Not only can AI take these jobs and remove the ill effects but it can be used to recycle elements that were too costly to do, even with cheap human labor.
One of the most revolutionary effects of AI will be in farming and this has already started to take effect. In the United States poisonous herbicides to kill weeds makeup about 76% of all chemical farm applications. If farmers can use AI to kill their weeds we have taken a giant step toward becoming an organic farming nation.
The technology is already here and some farmers are using it. Here is a video posted back in August of 2024.
As the prices for these non-chemical methods go down the problem of pesticides in our food will become a thing of the past.
AI is already used in some harvesting and picking fruit, but the technology will only get better and soon there will be little need for field laborers.
On the positive side, the costs of food production will go down with the benefit of fewer poisons in our supply. On the negative fewer unskilled jobs will be available for the masses.
Manufacturing is another area that will be transformed through AI. Now the company that uses more automation and robotics than any other is Tesla. In fact, it is estimated that robotics is advanced enough that they will be able to churn out a Robotaxi in around ten seconds. Sounds like they will not need any humans to speak of, right?
Wrong. Tesla currently employs around 135,000 employees with few signs of any major layoffs. It appears that Tesla has found things for employees to do instead of boring assembly line work.
What we can look forward to with the development of AI and robotics will be the elimination of many jobs. Most of these will be rather boring jobs that most of us would only do if we really needed the money. Like Tesla we will see many new jobs created, but these jobs will not be so boring, and more interesting than any repetitious assembly linework.
However, it remains a concern that as AI and robotics advances more human jobs may be replaced. What would the world be like if almost all current jobs could be replaced by AI. We’ll discuss that next.
Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced. – James Baldwin
Is AI Good for Humanity? Part 4
Conversations About AI
Jim arrived at Owen’s place right on time and was proud of himself for driving there without assistance. “Glad I don’t need AI to take me places. I like being in control. My friend Owen though is another matter. The poor guy has turned his life over to AI.”
Jim got out of the car and approached the door. Before he could knock the door swung open and he was greeted by a beautiful blond female who looked somewhat like Marylin Monroe.
“Welcome James, “she said. “Please come in.”
Jim swallowed hard and walked in and was greeted by his friend Owen. He motioned toward the female and said, “What do you think of Sherry? Beautiful, isn’t she?”
“Not bad for an AI. What happened to Larry? asked Jim”
“Well, my girlfriend, Monica, and I broke up. She would only put up with me having a male AI, but now she is out of the equation I upgraded. Sherry’s great company to fill in the human gap now I’m single again. In addition, she does all the housework that Larry did and is much more pleasant to look at.”
“So, are you going to settle for a relationship with an AI and forget about real women?”
“The temptation is there,” said Owen, “but I will continue on my quest to find my true human soulmate. Meanwhile Sherry is great company and an upgrade from Larry.
Sherry looked at Jim and said, “Would you like a glass of your favorite Cabernet?”
“Sure,” said Jim. He looked at Owen and said, “How does she know my taste in wine?”
“You’d be surprised at what she knows. Ask her any question about yourself after she serves you the wine.”
After delivering glasses to both of them Jim asked Sherry in a somewhat challenging voice, “Okay smartie. Like Owen, I haven’t found my soulmate yet. Why do you suppose that is, and what do I need to do to find her?”
Owen stepped in, “My friend, I must warn you that Sherry is now searching through everything online there is about you, she is reading every post and email you have ever made.”
“That’s what I don’t like about AI. It’s too intrusive.”
“Listen, maybe you’ll learn something,” said Owen.
Sherry looked at Jim and spoke, “You have a strong dislike and resistance toward advances in technology, especially AI. This originates from a more general character trait which is an overall resistance to change and a refusal to adapt because of some personal view of what freedom means to you.”
“In any relationship, especially a romantic one change and adaptability are necessary to make them successful. You have not formed a solid relationship with a female because of your inability to adapt. If you met a good potential mate tomorrow some compromise and change would be necessary to make it work, but because you are so opinionated and demand your own way the chances of success are not high. To be frank, your best chance of a mate that you could be get along with would be an AI like myself. Owen also shares some of your resistance to change, but he embraces AI and I am programmed to accommodate him much more than would be the case with a human companion.”
Jim rose up with a disturbed look on his face, “That’s outrageous. You do not know squat about me and the last thing I want is an AI companion. I want a real woman.”
“But you’ve had real women, good women, and you chased them away with your rigid demands,” said Sherry.
“I ordered an AI that only tells the truth, “said Owen, “and there you have it. And I think she is right. I’ve known you since we were kids and you’ve had a couple relationships that could have worked, but you were just too demanding of having everything go your way. Sherry tells me I have a similar problem in relationships, but I’m not as rigid as you. If I were I wouldn’t embrace AI and be here with Sherry which is a lot better than nothing.”
“I have relationships, said Jim defensively. “real ones.”
“I’m the best real relationship you have,” said Owen. “There something about a relationship like ours that originates in childhood. You tend to value and nurture it. I value your friendship even though we’ve grown apart with a lot of our thinking.”
“I guess I feel the same way,” sad Jim. “I think you are way too trusting of new technology and most people who think like you I tell to take a hike, but there is something special about old friendships.”
“Indeed. You’re my friend for life despite your contrary nature. I invited you over for a nice dinner together and I’ve got just the place…”
“I was thinking of a place too,” said Jim. “I’d like to go to a place where there are real humans who serve you. My favorite is Joe’s Old Fashion Steakhouse.”
“The trouble with restaurants run by humans is they cost twice as much,” said Owen, “plus you are expected to tip 20 per cent. At an AI restaurant you save the tip money right off the bat and the cost is a lot less – sometimes 50 per cent less. On top of that, the food is consistently good. At my favorite AI restaurant, they have all my orders and comments in their system and know exactly how I like my steak cooked and always get it perfect. I’ll tell you what. Come with me to the Cosmic Steak House and the dinner is on me.”
“Do they serve real meat or that artificial stuff?”
“Both,” said Owen. I always get the real thing and it’s great – just costs a bit more.”
“Maybe it’s time for me to try AI service, especially if you are paying.”
“You’re on,” said Owen and spoke a couple words into his phone. Jim heard the garage door open. “The van just left the garage and is waiting for us out front.”
“When did you get a van?” asked Jim.
“A couple weeks ago and the best part is I’m getting it for free.”
“How is that possible?”
“The manufacturer has this taxi system you can join after you purchase a vehicle. Many like me are not using their vehicle most of the time and if you are willing to let other people rent it when not in use then the owner gets 60% of the taxi money. So far it looks like I’ll take enough in to make the payments so basically, I’m getting this super van for free.”
“Isn’t it inconvenient for people to come to your house to pick it up,” asked Jim.
“That’s not necessary. All a customer does is install an app and request a vehicle like mine. If I’m not using it my van will drive itself out of the garage and go pick the customer up. When the customer is done using it the van drives itself back to my house and parks itself in the garage.”
“So, you’re telling me that you have this fancy new van for free with no inconvenience or work on your part?”
“Right you are,” said Owen. “And that might be a good enough deal for even a stubborn fellow like you to try out.”
“I have to admit it is something to think about, but I’m still partial to my good old reliable gasoline model. I don’t trust these EV’s.”
“What’s not to trust?” said Owen. “They are much more reliable than the gas driven and very low maintenance.” He then turned to Sherry, “Keep an eye on the place while we are gone.”
“Will do,” she smiled.
“And if an intruder shows up what will she do – kill them with kindness?”
“Let me put it this way,” said Owen. “If anyone tries to break in unannounced, they will be the ones broken. Sherry will first order them to leave and if not, she’ll take care of them.”
“She doesn’t look strong enough to be much of a threat,” said Jim.
“Maybe a little demonstration is needed. I know you pride yourself on being a good arm wrestler. Here, sit at this table and prepare to be defeated.”
“I always like a good challenge,” said Jim. He sat at the table and Sherry sat in opposition ready for the match. Jim applied a powerful thrust thinking to take her off guard, but to no avail. She smiled and steadily applied pressure until it was obvious she easily won the match.
“What did I tell you?” said Owen. “There’s no intruder that will be a match for her. “I’ll tell you a private thing I do with her if you do not spread it around.”
“What’s that?” Said Jim nursing his ego while letting his imagination run wild about what Owen may do with Sherry in private.
“For part of my daily exercise program I wrestle with her. Now at full strength she could tare me to pieces so I just put her on strength level three or sometimes four out of ten.” Level three is the strength of a healthy female and level four that of a strong male.
“And at level four you are about even? What level do you leave her on to guard your home?”
“Level ten. An intruder wouldn’t have much of a chance here. In fact, the chances of anyone forcing entrance with Sherry around is pretty small. I also have a sign out front saying Guarded by AI. That alone is enough to discourage invaders these days.”
“I have to admit that Sherry has practical uses for AI that I hadn’t thought of. I’m fully armed but not always there to protect my valuables. It may be worth it to get my own Sherry just for security alone.”
“And I would love to listen in to the conversations you would wind up having,” said Owen. “Okay, let’s hop in the van and go to dinner. I’m starving.”
After entering the van Jim spoke, “Wow, I’ve never seen a van like this. There is no steering wheel and the space here is like a small room with a table in the middle. It’s really quite spacious.”
“Terrific, isn’t it?” replied Owen. I can even lay down and take a nap when caught in traffic. I can also watch TV or surf the internet.”
“I have to admit that is a benefit, as the traffic here is getting worse all the time.”
“I just may convert you to AI before the night is over, Owen said with a grin.
They arrived at the restaurant, the van stopped and Owen motioned for Jim to get out.
“We can’t get out yet. This is not permanent parking,” he said.
“Doesn’t matter,” said Owen. The van will find its own parking and then pick us up when we are ready. That saves us ten minutes or so of wasted time.”
“Impressive,” said Jim.
They entered and were greeted and seated by human looking AIs. Jim looked over the menu. “Pretty extensive menu,” he said. Looks like they have synthetic meats of all kinds including fish. I wonder how close to the real thing the lobster tastes.”
“Well, it’s less than half the cost so if it is close it would be worth it.”
“I’m curious, but I’m going to order a ribeye, for I want the real thing, even though the cost is more. I tried an artificial steak once and it just was not the same.”
“How long’s it been since you’ve tasted a synthetic ribeye?” asked Own.
“Actually, it’s been over five years. I was turned off and just stuck with the real thing.
“They’ve made a lot of improvements since then.” Owen hailed a waiter and said, “Bring my friend here a taste of your best synthetic ribeye cooked medium.”
A few minutes later the AI waiter arrived with a sizable bite of steak. Jim examined it and it seemed to have the texture and look of the real thing. He took a bite. “I’m impressed,” he said. This is a big improvement over the last time I tasted artificial meat.”
“So, are you going to order the synthetic or the real thing?”
“I’ll stick with the real thing,” said Jim. “Who knows what all the ingredients are in the synthetic.”
“I’ll do the same,” said Owen, “though if the price of real meat keeps going up I may be forced to switch.”
They enjoyed their meal and conversation. The AI’s were so close to human that Jim began to feel he was in a regular restaurant.
“The service was actually very good here. Let me at least throw in some money for a tip.”
“I told you, that you do not have to tip in these AI restaurants. The AI’s do not receive any payment so extra money means nothing to them.”
“I’m sure the owner would appreciate something extra,” said Jim.
Some AI establishments do accept tips, but this one actually forbids them – takes away the pressure you feel to add one in.”
At that moment an authoritative gentleman appeared and addressed them. “Hope you enjoyed your meal. Owen, I see you have brought a friend.”
“Indeed. Jim, this is Ted, the owner of this establishment. I assure you he is a real human.”
“Nice to meet you Ted. I’m kind of old school and this is the first time I’ve been in an establishment like this. I can’t believe no tips are allowed. What’s it like working with just AI’s all the time?”
“Quite pleasant, actually as there are few mistakes and no personality problems. I do have one human assistant though. Hope you come back and try other things on the menu. I think you’ll find everything is first rate.”
“So far so good,” smiled Jim.
They finished up and went to the front of the restaurant where the van dropped by and picked them up. Once inside Owen said, “Have you been to a virtual movie theater yet?”
“No. I’ve heard about them but have been happy playing movies on my old fashion TV.”
“Well, you’re in for a treat,” said Owen. “If you thought the restaurant was high tech wait until you see this. It’s like you are really in the movie itself. You’ll never be the same again after the experience.”
Jim sat back and wondered about how much resistance remained in him.
I got the blues thinking of the future, so I left off and made some marmalade. It’s amazing how it cheers one up to shred oranges and scrub the floor. —D.H. Lawrence
Is AI Good for Humanity? Part 5
AI and Privacy
Another concern over AI expressed by Tucker Carlson to Kevin O’Leary was about privacy. He seems to think that continued development of AI will lead to less privacy and loss of freedom.
Tucker is a great example of someone who doesn’t trust technology. After all, he says he doesn’t own a computer, or even a TV, and shies away from new-fangled gadgets like electronic garage door openers. Hopefully, for his wife’s sake, he has an eclectic washer and dryer.
Even though he goes to an almost Amish extreme he does voice a concern expressed by many. In the debate he said this:
“China uses technology to eliminate privacy. And no privacy means no freedom. You can’t actually have freedom as you’re being surveilled, right? I mean, the most diabolical thing, this is a subject of many science fiction stories, that any government can do to you is control your thoughts, of course. Because why? Because your thoughts are private, and because they’re private, they cannot be violated. Privacy is essential, it’s a prerequisite for freedom. And China is bad because there is no privacy in China. Everything you say or do is being monitored with technology.”
My son and his wife have lived and worked in China for over a decade and he says the amount of general freedom there is not that much different from living in the United States. Though they do have some restrictions that we do not they also have advantages. Their cities are safe and clean with technology that exceeds ours and they can go on walks in Shanghai with their kids with no fear of being mugged. Overall, technology there is more of an asset than a detriment.
But, if Tucker is correct then shouldn’t the countries with the least freedom be the ones using the highest technology? And what are a couple example of nations where no one who loves freedom wants to live?
That would be North Korea and Cuba. Since the North Koreans have the highest state of surveillance and the least freedom on the planet then they must all have lots of technology on their persons and in their homes, right?
Wrong.
Only a handful of the elite have internet access but average citizens have none in their homes and no technology on their bodies – no computers, no mobile phones, no smart watches and only around half even have electricity to their homes.
The average citizen there doesn’t even know what AI is, let alone being controlled by it.
Equating the idea of high technology being available to all with loss of freedom falls apart when we examine nations of history where freedom was lost and surveillance was at a very high point.
Examples that we do not want to see resurface would include (but not be limited to) Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin in Russia. Chairman Mao in emerging China and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
None of these characters had any of the technology that we have today but they were able to spy on their own citizens with impunity and control their every move. Just ask a Jew in the Hitler regime if high technology was needed to take way freedom?
If technology was not the devil of the time what was?
The answer should be obvious. It was a centralized government assuming complete control, and that is a major problem for freedom no matter what technology is available.
It is not technology that takes away freedom, but people – the same type of people who have been here for thousands of years.
In fact, a case could be made that technology is helping to prevent those situations where power is too centralized and the freedoms of the people are abused. Not only does technology give the government power to spy on the people, but it also gives the people power to spy on the government and expose abuses to the people When abuses are exposed then the people complain in a way that forces powerful people to pull back from their plans of control
A prime example was Edward Snowden. According to Wikipedia “He revealed numerous global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance with the cooperation of telecommunications companies and European governments, and prompted a cultural discussion about national security and individual privacy.”
There are many Edward Snowdens out there releasing all kinds of things powerful people want to keep secret. This makes me think back to a prophecy made by Jesus where he said that
“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” Luke 12:2-3
Is that an accurate description of where technology has taken us to today or what? People think they are discussing something in secret one day and the next it is broadcast all over social media.
In the days of Hitler, Stalin and Mao authorities could work under cover of darkness to subvert the power of the people, but such a thing is much more difficult today. Advanced technology and communication is undoubtably one of the reasons that the Chinese people have much more freedom today than they did under Mao.
On the other hand, technology has not made its way into the hands of the people of North Korea and there the people have made little or no advances, as have the people of China.
AI is just like any other technological advance as far as being good or evil. It is neutral, but whether it is used constructively or destructively depends on human decisions. Just like the alternating current can be used to power an electric chair or heat your home AI can be directed positively or negatively. The ultimate decision of how to use a new power is made with human minds, not the technology itself.
I was born in 1945 and the fears of privacy being invaded today is not much different than when I was young. Back in the sixties and seventies people figured that if the deep state wanted to spy on them they could tap their phones, do surveillance on their home, access bank and government records, not much different than today. Today if you want to make sure you have a private conversation just go out in your back yard without electronic devices and talk – not much different than back in the sixties.
Unlike the old days we also have encryption available through Signal, WhatsApp and others, which is quite secure, but Musk is coming out with XChat, a revamped messaging feature/app with end-to-end encryption which he believes will provide the best privacy yet.
What people do not realize is that it costs an agency thousands of dollars to single out an individual for deep surveillance and few of us would warrant being given that much attention.
Now if someone in Congress comes up with the idea of forcefully planting a chip in everyone’s brain to monitor all of our thoughts then that would indeed be a concern. But as it is, the only such implanting in the works is that which will enable the blind to see and the paraplegics to function. They will gladly accept implants for the benefit of more freedom through technology, not less.
What you have inherited from your fathers, earn over again for yourselves, or it will not be yours. – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Is AI Good for Humanity? Part 6
Data Centers & Sweetheart Deals
Tucker also complains about data centers in relation to taxes. He makes it sound like data centers are getting special treatment not available to others. He says this:
“Why am I as a taxpayer forced to pay for your business? I don’t get it.
“I run a couple of businesses and we’re not getting any tax breaks. I think they’re every bit as virtuous as data centers, and I wouldn’t take it anyway.”
Tucker is not being very truthful when he says he is not getting any tax breaks. He lives in Maine, and does most of his podcasting from there, but where is his headquarters technically located? His Corporate and Financial Headquarters is located in Reno, Nevada.
If O’Leary would have known this he could have shot back: “Why are the people of Maine allowing you to escape state income tax? Is it because Maine is in the top five states for high corporate tax rates, so you establish a base in Nevada where the corporate tax rate is zero? Obviously, you’re looking for tax benefits just as are owners of data centers such as myself.”
What Tucker does not tell his audience is that it is not just data centers who seek tax and other advantages, but virtually all businesses do this including himself. But there is a difference in the leverage of a big business as managed by Kevin O’Leary and Tucker’s enterprises. O’Leary employs around 10,000 people while Tucker most likely only has about thirty in his broadcasting business and a handful in his other enterprises. Which one would have the most clout in drawing the attention of local authorities seeking to expand their tax base and local financial progress?
The guy with 10,000 employees will garner much more attention.
The truth is that the owners of data centers have no more clout than another other big business for the fact is this. The larger the business project is the more will local authorities generally be willing to make concessions to get them to locate in their area.
Let us take a business like Amazon. Now suppose they make plans to create a new distribution or data center. They plan to spend over a billion dollars and a couple thousand new jobs will be created in the area where they choose to locate. Word gets out and spreads like wildfire among numerous possible locations. Amazon narrows down their selection to six and finally to three possibilities. All three want Amazon to locate in their city so they compete in making the best possible offers. They will offer tax breaks, low utility rates and even discounts on land purchases. Sometimes even free land is offered.
Why do cities make such offers when on the surface it looks like they are losing money and not collecting all possible taxes?
These city authorities are looking at the whole picture rather than the small piece. They only make generous offers when it looks like they will gain more than they will lose. Yes, they may lose some tax revenue from the business itself, but all the new employees will pay all kinds of taxes. Yes, they may lose some money in discounting some utilities, but if the business spends a billion dollars or more locally then that more than makes up for it.
Because of the overall benefit of dollars flowing into the community, there is rarely any lack of sweetheart offers to large businesses seeking to expand or relocate.
Concerning his planned data center O’Leary says it will “create 2,000 jobs for long-term and 10,000 manufacturing at the beginning or construction. And I’m obviously looking at multiple sites.”
Those jobs, plus the money flowing in from the initial investment will enhance the local economy
Many, like Tucker, accuse big businesses of avoiding certain taxes, but the truth is that just about all of us, including Tucker, will seek to legally pay the lowest possible tax.
The alternative would be to make some national law that would outlaw making business deals that gives anyone an advantage. Such a law would most likely do much more harm than good.
Citizens may not agree with all the deals made, but if the deal is bad enough there will be a public outcry that could change the result. The system basically works.
In Boise, Idaho, where I live, the largest employer is Micron Technology, a giant in the manufacturing of computer chips. They started out here and have expanded to plants around the world, but we want them to expand here as much as possible as they contribute greatly to the economy supplying around 6,000 high paying local jobs. To keep their interest on local expansion Idaho gives them a nice reduction on real estate taxes to encourage them to expand on existing land. In addition, they supply numerous tax breaks.
Since Micron is an American manufacturer of computer chips, and may be one of the only manufacturers not affected by supply chain problems from abroad the federal government granted Micron $6.4 billion in assistance to expand manufacturing.
Yes, the big guys get breaks that the small guys do not, but they also provide more benefits and many of the small guys benefit from the benefits flowing in their direction.
The system isn’t perfect but overall, it works well enough that attempted change by legislators or bureaucrats is likely to do more harm than good.
You never conquer a mountain. You stand on the summit a few moments; then the wind blows your footprints away. – Arlene Bum
May 21, 2026
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
Index for Original Archives
Index for Recent Posts
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Easy Access to All the Writings
For Free Book go HERE
