Hatched mid 1950s in the UK to the point now where AI poses a major threat to employment of humans, my first question was, “Follow the Money”. That is, who owns this evolving beast?
Answer: AI is accessible via Claude from Anthropic, Google's Gemini, and OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
Moving on.
One need not be a sceptic to conclude that AI is eroding people’s ability to think for themselves, reinforcing false notions and providing false information. However, in my view, AI may well provide a challenge to MSM who for a couple of centuries at least, has been the conduit of propaganda for social conflict (re-inventing Treaty of Waitangi as a local example).
As AI evolves, students may no longer need to attend universities and perhaps secondary schools. Why consult a university or library when ChatGPT or DeepSeek can synthesize information in fields ranging from astrophysics to who was first to discover New Zealand, in the span of a coffee break? Which single professor can match that range and output?
Who are at immediate risk? The immediate job threat is not to plumbers or carpenters. It is to the supposedly safe “knowledge class.”
The media in particular is staring at seismic shocks. Copy-editors, proofreaders and TV Anchors? Many redundant by now. If AI models can already sell fashion, why not deliver the evening news via an AI anchor?
One reason why there will be lots of hesitancy in terms of mass adoption of AI by media – aside from scrambling to protect some roles for humans, is that an AI anchor – may not ask scripted questions to get scripted answers. That is, MSM could lose control of “their version” of factual events (which may be a hidden benefit for the masses).
Lawyers are at risk. (This is a potential gain for the masses).
Why hire a lawyer when AI can draft affidavits in seconds without the pomp, theatrics, and obscene billing that lawyers cling to like a birthright? Most people don’t realize that they can represent themselves — “pro se” to use a legal term — with AI’s help, if not for numerous obstacles placed by the legal fraternity.
A danger lurking latent but tangible midst social activity is attachment to AI mates i.e. “girlfriends” and “boyfriends”.
Why would anyone want to engage in social discourse with a robot?
As the odyssey of life unfolds for us all, we begin to acknowledge that we live in a culture of deceit and shallow connections and where public life feels like a revolving circus of drama and demoralization. That erosion of meaning breeds anxiety, depression, and other psychosocial stresses.
Relationships are forged and enforced by various types of power gradients within a work environment. It has been so since time immemorial where bullying, sexual harassment and backstabbing by workmates to their advantage of promotion, is the phenomenon.
Rising living costs are also rapidly dismantling traditional opportunities for socializing. Not many people can actually afford to visit a pub anymore. What was once an affordable source of conviviality for the working classes is now becoming obsolete.
AI mates, however, represent a new paradigm altogether. For the first time ever, the object of affection can “talk back” in real-time on a variety of topics, and these interactions seem more real and fulfilling than those with humans who can carry grudges, tempers, malice etc.
The rise in AI relationships may also be caused by growing distrust of fellow human beings, compounded by a cultural drift encouraged by academics, politicians, and other traditional gatekeepers.
The lunatics are running the asylum in all social spheres, and people feel let down, disoriented, and desperate for stability.
In that vacuum, AI becomes a substitute anchor. These “relationships” emerge from the collision of human needs (loneliness, intimacy, safety, etc.) with hyper-personalized technology. In a cultural climate where traditional norms around love, sex, and marriage are dissolving, machines become the path of least resistance.
My second question therefore is: Will AI and its human companion, evolve into romance?
Ross Meurant BA MPP Former Police Inspector, Member of Parliament and Diplomatic Representative.
(1) Acknowledge Dr. Mathew Maavak
No comments:
Post a Comment