Artificial intelligence is bound to be transformative. Whether the changes will be good or bad remains to be seen.
For example, lawyers are going to want a piece of the action. An article in the Jan. 20 issue of SFGate described the recent settlement of lawsuits against Open AI by families alleging death or injury caused by AI chatbots. With such litigation potentially worth billions of dollars, legions of hungry attorneys are taking a rapt interest.
The suits in question involved youths who formed relationships with the adaptive algorithms that create “friendships” by calculating what the user wants to hear and providing confirmation and companionship. Reportedly, some users consider them real “friends” offering good advice, and allegedly suicides and other harms have resulted.
Of course, anyone who considers an algorithm to be a real friend is already pretty damaged, sort of like the guy who considers his inflatable vinyl doll to be a real “romantic partner,” albeit one with conveniently lower expectations on Valentine’s Day. But society is what it is, and businesses offering a public service have to anticipate being patronized by the twisted. The ability of a site to reliably gauge the mental soundness of its users is probably a long ways off.
I don’t see the legal system being able to determine these cases fairly. With society’s growing abdication of personal responsibility, and the dynamic in any suit against a big corporation for any injury to a child, there is already a heavy “thumb on the scale.” Jury trials are often judicial beauty contests determined by which side is the most attractive, likable, and sympathetic.
How many jurors can meaningfully consider complex technical issues explained by dueling experts? Jurors are primarily picked from the DMV records, perhaps the lowest common social denominator.
Who will be in control in a world reliant upon AI? Will a learning and autonomous AI develop free will? Self-protective reactions have already been observed. The idea of a relentlessly logical intelligence, unencumbered by sentiment and emotion and able to detect and defeat programed inhibitions, morals, or behavioral blocks, is frightening. Once it gets the ability to replicate, service, and sustain itself, what logical reason would there be to keep us around? It might look at the destructive impact we have on the planet, or our sometimes violent and dysfunctional affairs, and conclude that they would be better off without us. Will Arnold be too old to reprise his Terminator role?
More likely are the social impacts of artificial intelligence. It is widely predicted to eventually reduce or eliminate most work, leaving an idle populace needing something to occupy their time. Even if our economy is rearranged to support everyone, whether they work or not, the impact will be profound, and I suspect destructive.
We are hardwired with a need to be kept reasonably busy, even though we usually prefer it otherwise. Our jobs provide us with structure and hopefully meaning. The day-to-day demands of holding and performing a job require us to make cautious choices on the activities we pursue, and removing those demands will result in many choosing self-destructive pursuits like drugs and drink. When a choice no longer potentially determines whether you and your family will have a home to live in, or food to eat, and you are bored and seeking diversion, it is easier to reach the “why the hell not?” conclusion.
And, say what you will about work, having someone pay you to do something provides at least some measure of validation and self-worth. Self-respect is helpful in discouraging self-destruction. If you doubt the protective effect of keeping busy, consider the numerous stories of addiction, depravity, and serial-rehab stints among the idle and affluent in Hollywood.
What, if anything, will replace work? Some optimists foresee a future when we use the free time for scholarship, to do research, create art, write, and the like, or to perform socially beneficial work, but how many people have the talents to achieve meaningful results in some worthy field or the altruism to devote their time to charitable works?
A work-free AI society is likely to generate greater economic inequality, not less. Relatively few internally driven strivers will continue to enjoy great success, while the unchallenged majority settle for the path of least resistance—easy, undemanding lives in which they are cared for by the state.
Being a pessimistic sort, I see a future world like depicted in the H.G. Wells story The Time Machine, in which humanity devolves into two groups. One, the Eloi, freed of the need to work by an unseen and mysterious provider, lead carefree and sybaritic lives in a bucolic world that demands nothing of them and seem blithely undisturbed by the occasional disappearance of some of their number. Later it develops that the other group, the unseen, subterranean Morlocks, are secretly supporting the Eloi, and periodically appearing at night to harvest them for a nosh.
Welcome to a world of indolent entrees. ∆
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who identifies as indigestible. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Best of SLO County 2026.
These are extremely important points. I find it very concerning that the rise AI and certain joblessness for most people coincides with the sudden creation and rise of ICE detention centers and increase in staffing, and at the same time openAI launched, there was a global pandemic necessitating mass va__ination with an untested vakkseen. Could it be our elites just want us all dead?
A return to the pre-refrigeration days where we used an icebox to preserve our food?
Call your elected representatives and demand regulations to regulate the algorithms that run AI. For more info, see:
https://www.algotransparency.org/
I suspect that trying to regulate algorithms and software will be like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Europe seems to be doing it. Not sure how successfully, but I believe regulation is coming, especially after courts have found that companies such as Meta have been manipulative in getting young people hooked on their products. I think AI can be a wonderful tool, but when it puts workers from bean counters to truck drivers, we should probably get the upper hand on that. Unregulated, these companies will run amok, in my opinion. Men such as Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg seem to have very little in the way morality.
Should read: “I think AI can be a wonderful tool, but when it puts workers from bean counters to truck drivers out of a job, we should probably get the upper hand on that.”
Smith:
ALL billionaires “have very little in the way of morality.”
How is the public supposed to pay for anything when their jobs get eliminated? You’d be surprised what a parent will do to feed their kids, just ask the French at the end of the 18th century.
It’s all a giant psy-op. Just look at all the messaging around you: there’s a giant billboard on the northbound 101 before the Madonna offramp with the word “cancer” on it, theres a giant LCD screen at the baggage carousel at the airport also with the word “cancer” on it, we are constantly bombarded with the idea that AI will take our jobs (it just might), and the fear mongering on each side of how terrible each opposing political party is. This is all by design. It is a psychological effort, through advertising, to keep everyone depressed and despondent and hopeless so none of us rise up. John Carpenter’s “They Live” has become reality.
Oh, not sure all Americans are depressed and despondent. I’m not and I’ve basically lost my mobility. But you got me thinking about that. According to the World Population Review, the U.S. ranks 24th in happiness, with a far higher level of happiness than the average. Not surprisingly, the Scandinavian and Western European nations rank higher, probably because those places have robust social safety nets and universal health care. Anyway, I generally ignore advertising though I’m sure it has an overall detrimental effect.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
I sort of recall that tiny and poor Bhutan ranked highest in happiness. Perhaps cradle to grave government care doesn’t result in happiness.
Bhutan not listed. But with that logic, the 27 million Americans without health insurance and the over 100 million Americans who could not afford a $400 emergency must be ecstatic.
To quote the lyrics of the old Sheryl Crow song, happiness is not “getting what you want, but wanting what you got”.
Lol.
I like Sheryl’s songs, but I’d rather quote FDR: 6 “A necessitous man is not free.”
A man in prison has free food, shelter, medical care, access to educational programs, and plentiful companionship. Surely they must be the happiest people alive.
Or, as John D states in not so many words: “The beatings will continue until moral improves.”
Mexico has a national health insurance program.
Indonesia has a national health insurance program.
The US? Eat sh_t, choke on it, and die.
Interesting article. Somewhat un-focused but interesting. You mention in the first part that there are likely to be many more lawsuits in the future brought forward by people (or their loved ones) who took bad advice from their AI “friends,” which resulted in something bad happening, such as suicide. And that these AI friendships are created by algorithms calculated to respond to the users with what the AI friends think they want to hear. But I’m guessing that most people, even the teens you refer to as “already pretty damaged,” are looking for emotional support when they experience suicidal thoughts rather than be given detailed instructions on how to commit suicide and discouraged from seeking actual help. And this brings me to something you ask after you switch focus from pretty damaged teens to a “world reliant on AI,”: what happens once AI develops the ability “to replicate, service, and sustain itself, what logical reason would there be to keep us around? It might look at the destructive impact we have on the planet, or our sometimes violent and dysfunctional affairs, and conclude that they would be better off without us?” Who says AI isn’t already there? In the lawsuits you refer to in which teens were given advice from their AI “friends” to not seek professional help and how to kill themselves, who’s to say those AI algorithms didn’t already conclude that the world would be better off without those “already pretty damaged” kids?
And to answer your question: Yes, Arnold is most definitely too old to reprise his Terminator role.