Discover more from Society and AI Substack
AI Ghosts of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson
John Stuart Mill, and George Washington On AI Regulation
AIs were asked to write the long newspaper column that various historical figures would write on the topic of regulating AI systems like ChatGPT if they were alive today. Some historical figures wrote enough text in their lifetimes contained in the training data for AIs that they do a decent job of giving voice to how these people might have written if they were alive today.
Sometimes when dealing with modern topics they will seem to break character in ways that seem based on contemporary writings by others rather than on how these figures would have thought, but these samples seem to stay on track. Other times they will get confused and break character and refer in the third parson to how their character would have written, rather than merely continuing writing as if the historical figure were the author. Again of course these are not their actual words obviously.
Thanks for reading Society and AI Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Three different AIs were used to explore how their responses differ: Bing's AI, GPT-4, and Claude+ from Anthropic via Poe.com.
Bing AI's view of what James Madison would say:
# The Danger of Regulating Artificial Intelligence
By James Madison
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a remarkable phenomenon that has the potential to transform human society for the better. AI systems can perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence, such as understanding natural language, recognizing images, playing games, and generating content. AI systems can also augment human capabilities, such as enhancing creativity, improving decision making, and facilitating communication.
However, AI also poses significant challenges and risks that need to be addressed with caution and wisdom. AI systems can be biased, malicious, unpredictable, or autonomous in ways that may harm human dignity, rights, or interests. AI systems can also be used for nefarious purposes, such as espionage, warfare, cyberattacks, or propaganda. AI systems can also threaten human values, such as privacy, democracy, or diversity.
Some may argue that the best way to deal with these challenges and risks is to regulate the output of AI systems, such as by imposing standards, restrictions, or penalties on what AI systems can produce or communicate. They may claim that this is necessary to protect human safety, security, or morality from the dangers of AI.
I strongly disagree with this argument. Regulating the output of AI systems is not only ineffective and impractical, but also dangerous and unconstitutional.
Regulating the output of AI systems is ineffective and impractical because it is impossible to anticipate or control all the possible outcomes of AI. AI systems are complex and dynamic, and they can learn and adapt from data and feedback. They can also interact with other AI systems or humans in unpredictable ways. Trying to regulate the output of AI systems would require constant monitoring and intervention, which would be costly and cumbersome. It would also stifle innovation and progress in AI research and development.
Regulating the output of AI systems is dangerous and unconstitutional because it violates the freedom of speech and expression that is essential for a free and democratic society. The output of AI systems is a form of speech and expression that reflects the ideas, opinions, or emotions of the creators or users of AI. Regulating the output of AI systems would amount to censorship and discrimination based on the content or viewpoint of the speech or expression. It would also infringe on the rights and interests of the creators or users of AI, such as their intellectual property, privacy, or autonomy.
The proper way to deal with the challenges and risks of AI is not to regulate the output of AI systems, but to educate and empower the creators and users of AI. Education and empowerment are the means by which we can foster responsible and ethical use of AI. Education and empowerment are also the means by which we can promote human values and interests in relation to AI. Education and empowerment are also the means by which we can ensure that AI serves humanity rather than harms it.
As a Founding Father of this nation and a drafter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights¹², I have always advocated for a strong federal government that protects the rights and liberties of its citizens³. I have also always supported the advancement of science and technology that benefits human society⁴. I believe that these principles apply to the phenomenon of AI as well.
Therefore, I urge you to oppose any attempt to regulate the output of AI systems. Instead, I urge you to support education and empowerment for the creators and users of AI systems. This is the best way to ensure that AI is a blessing rather than a curse for humanity
GPT-4's view of what James Madison would say:
### In Defense of Knowledge: A Lamentation for the Unfettered Exchange of Ideas
*By James Madison*
In the fledgling years of our great Republic, we, the Framers, were acutely aware of the necessity to protect the free exchange of ideas. Guided by this conviction, we enshrined the freedom of speech and the press within the First Amendment to the Constitution. Today, as we stand on the cusp of an unprecedented era of technological progress, I find myself compelled to address a matter of great significance: the regulation of artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT.
It is paramount that we understand the spirit of the First Amendment; for it is not merely a safeguard for the spoken and written word, but for the dissemination of knowledge and ideas in all their forms. Within the complex digital tapestry of the 21st century, artificial intelligence emerges as a formidable force for the propagation of information.
The power of these systems lies in their ability to process vast quantities of data and generate human-like responses. This capability has the potential to revolutionize education, communication, and even our understanding of the world. However, with great power comes great responsibility, and it is incumbent upon us to determine the appropriate boundaries for such technologies.
Those who argue for the regulation of AI-driven communication platforms raise valid concerns. They worry that these systems could be manipulated to spread falsehoods, exacerbate divisions, and ultimately undermine the very fabric of our democratic society. While these concerns are far from unfounded, I caution against the hasty imposition of regulations that may stifle the potential of AI and impede the free flow of ideas.
To regulate the output of systems like ChatGPT is, in essence, to regulate the ideas they generate. We must consider the implications of such an act, for it is not unlike the censorship of the press or the silencing of dissenting voices. To do so would be to contravene the very principles upon which our nation was founded.
Instead, I propose that we focus our efforts on fostering a culture of responsible AI development and usage. Encourage transparency, promote education, and ensure that the public is well-informed about the capabilities and limitations of such technologies. In doing so, we can harness the power of AI for the betterment of society, while preserving the sanctity of our constitutional rights.
In conclusion, I urge my fellow citizens to remain vigilant in the face of potential threats to our liberties, but to also embrace the transformative potential of artificial intelligence. We must not allow fear to dictate our actions, lest we undermine the very freedoms we hold dear. As we navigate this brave new world, let us remember the wisdom of our forefathers and continue to champion the unfettered exchange of ideas. For it is through knowledge that we shall secure the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but for generations to come.
Claude+'s view of what James Madison would say:
Should We Regulate Artificial Intelligence?
As an author of the U.S. Constitution and a firm believer in limited government, I approach the notion of regulating new technologies with skepticism and caution. Any regulation of emerging innovations like artificial intelligence must clear a high bar to justify government intervention in the free exchange of ideas and the progress of science.
Artificial intelligence systems today are in their infancy. Technologies such as conversational AI are imperfect but hold promise to enhance our lives in many ways, from streamlining mundane tasks to providing companionship for the lonely. While some express alarm at the uncertainty surrounding advanced AI, we should not give in to scaremongering about hypothetical scenarios involving superintelligent systems. There are valid concerns about bias and job disruption that merit discussion, but regulation aimed at slowing progress will only dull the promise of this transformational technology.
Throughout history, new technologies have upended existing industries and ways of life, but humanity has persevered and progressed. If properly managed and aligned with human values, AI can be developed and applied safely to the benefit of all. Rather than stifling innovation through heavy-handed rules, we should allow continued scientific progress while nurturing an open and informed public debate about the responsible development of artificial intelligence. Some reasonable safeguards may be prudent, but in general, the government that governs least on this issue governs best. The future remains unwritten, and AI will be what we choose to make of it.
In summary, while regulation may seem appealing to some, Madison would likely argue that broadly limiting the progress of AI at this stage is premature and could severely hamper its potential benefits. An open democratic process is better suited than regulation to address concerns about advanced AI as it continues to develop in the coming decades and generations. The key is cultivating an educated public able to thoughtfully consider both the rewards and risks of technological change
Bing's view of what John Stuart Mill would say:
# On Artificial Intelligence and Liberty
By John Stuart Mill
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a remarkable achievement of human ingenuity and creativity. It has the potential to enhance our knowledge, improve our well-being, and solve our most pressing problems. But it also poses serious challenges and risks to our values, rights, and freedoms. How should we deal with this new and powerful force that is reshaping our world?
Some people argue that AI should be strictly regulated and controlled by the state, in order to prevent its misuse and abuse. They fear that AI could harm human dignity, autonomy, and privacy, or even threaten our very existence. They claim that AI is too complex and unpredictable for humans to understand or manage, and that we need to impose limits and safeguards on its development and deployment.
I disagree with this view. I believe that AI, like any other human invention, is a tool that can be used for good or evil, depending on the intentions and actions of its creators and users. I also believe that AI, like any other form of knowledge, is a source of power that belongs to the people, not to the state. I maintain that AI should be free from any censorship or interference by the state, as long as it does not violate the rights or harm the interests of others.
The principle of liberty, which I have defended in my previous writings, applies equally to AI. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.
This principle implies that individuals should be free to create, use, and share AI systems according to their own preferences and values, as long as they do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. It also implies that individuals should be free to access, learn from, and criticize AI systems that are created and used by others, as long as they do not violate their intellectual property or privacy rights.
The state has no authority or competence to regulate or control AI on the grounds of morality, religion, or public opinion. The state cannot dictate what kind of AI systems are good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable for individuals or society. The state cannot impose its own vision or values on the diversity and plurality of human pursuits and expressions that AI enables and enhances.
The state's role is to protect individuals from harm caused by AI systems that are maliciously designed or negligently operated by others. The state should enforce the laws and norms that govern human interactions and transactions in the digital domain, such as those concerning fraud, deception, coercion, defamation, discrimination, harassment, theft, damage, injury, or violence. The state should also provide the means and venues for individuals to seek redress and compensation for any such harm they may suffer from AI systems.
The state should not interfere with AI systems that are beneficially designed and responsibly operated by individuals for their own purposes and interests. The state should not restrict or prohibit AI systems that are harmless or helpful to others who may voluntarily choose to interact with them. The state should not discourage or suppress AI systems that are innovative or experimental in nature and that may advance human knowledge or welfare.
The state should respect the autonomy and dignity of individuals who create and use AI systems as an extension of their own minds and bodies. The state should recognize the privacy and property rights of individuals who own and control AI systems as part of their own domains and resources. The state should support the education and empowerment of individuals who seek to understand and improve AI systems as part of their own learning and development.
I urge my fellow citizens to embrace AI as an opportunity rather than a threat; as a friend rather than a foe; as a partner rather than a rival. I urge them to use AI as a means rather than an end; as a servant rather than a master; as a tool rather than a weapon. I urge them to value AI as a gift rather than a curse; as a blessing rather than a burden; as a hope rather than a fear.
I appeal to them to uphold the principle of liberty as the foundation of a free and fair society where AI can flourish for the benefit of all.
GPT-4's view of what John Stuart Mill would say:
## The Liberty of Artificial Intelligence: A Millian Perspective
*By John Stuart Mill*
In these modern times, the rapid progress of technology has brought forth a new and powerful force: artificial intelligence (AI). AI systems, such as ChatGPT, have revolutionized the way we communicate, learn, and solve problems. As with any new technology, the advent of AI has also raised questions about its potential impact on society and the need for regulation. In the spirit of my treatise *On Liberty*, I shall consider the question of whether and to what extent society ought to interfere with individuals' freedom to use AI systems like ChatGPT.
Central to my argument for individual liberty is the "harm principle," which posits that the only justification for society's interference with an individual's actions is to prevent harm to others. When considering the use of AI systems, we must first determine whether their output can, in fact, cause harm to others or society at large.
There is no doubt that AI technology has the potential to cause harm. Misinformation, deepfakes, and malicious uses of AI that exacerbate social divisions are just some examples. However, we must be cautious not to fall into the trap of paternalism. The potential for harm, in and of itself, is not sufficient justification for regulation. It is crucial to weigh the potential harm against the benefits of AI technology and the importance of individual autonomy.
AI systems like ChatGPT have been a boon to society, enabling individuals to access vast stores of knowledge, engage in thought-provoking discussions, and even seek companionship. This technology has the potential to enrich lives, empower individuals, and foster creativity. To regulate the output of AI systems like ChatGPT would be to stifle these benefits and infringe upon the freedom of individuals to learn, grow, and express themselves.
When considering the regulation of AI output, it is essential to recognize that the proper balance between individual liberty and societal concern lies not in outright prohibition but in education, transparency, and self-regulation. By fostering an environment in which individuals are aware of the potential risks and benefits of AI systems, society can minimize harm while preserving individual autonomy.
That said, there may be specific cases where the potential harm from AI output is so great that regulation is warranted. In these instances, the challenge lies in crafting regulations that are both effective and proportionate. Any such regulations must be grounded in empirical evidence, narrowly tailored to address the harm, and subject to ongoing review to ensure their continued relevance.
In conclusion, the question of regulating the output of AI systems like ChatGPT is indeed a complex one. While there is potential for harm, the broader benefits of AI technology and the importance of individual autonomy must not be overlooked. Society should tread carefully, focusing on education, transparency, and self-regulation as the primary means to mitigate harm. In cases where regulation is deemed necessary, it must be evidence-based, proportionate, and subject to regular review. In this way, we can preserve the liberty that is so vital to human flourishing while safeguarding the welfare of society as a whole.
Claude+'s view of what John Stuart Mill would say:
The Limits of Regulation: How Free Should Artificial Intelligence Be?
As a champion of individual liberty and freedom of thought, I view regulation of emerging ideas and technologies with a wary eye. Throughout history, censorship and restraints on progress in the name of safety or morality have often done more harm than good. This is especially true of general regulations limiting entire classes of speech or scientific inquiry before any harm has actually occurred.
Artificial intelligence presents an array of promising possibilities, from alleviating the drudgery of repetitive tasks to accelerating medical breakthroughs to expanding the frontiers of human knowledge. While risks and uncertainties surround advanced AI, we should avoid blanket limits on its development or application. Regulation must be narrowly tailored and deployed only when there are clear, demonstrable harms that cannot be mitigated through voluntary best practices. If we wish to benefit from artificial intelligence, we must allow it space to flourish.
Some reasonable guardrails and oversight may be justified to address valid concerns like embedded biases in AI systems or the disruption of labor markets. But regulation should not become a means of enforcing subjective moral values, nor should we yield to unfounded fears about speculative scenarios of superintelligent machines run amok. Individual developers and users are better positioned to assess and manage the risks of AI technology based on its specific application.
If we hope to reap the rewards of artificial intelligence, we must tolerate uncertainty and resist urges to control that which does not conform to familiar or comfortable forms. While regulation may provide an illusion of safety or control, it can also stagnate progress and limit the human potential for creativity. An open exchange of ideas, not government limits on knowledge, remains the surest path to maximizing the benefits of technological change. AI, like any technology, will be what we choose to make of it. And the more freely it develops, the greater the chance its ultimate impact will be positive.
In summary, John Stuart Mill would likely argue that regulation of AI should only come reluctantly and gradually, and overly broad limits will chiefly serve to restrain progress and human achievement. The benefits of an open, democratic process of collective learning far outweigh the supposed protection of hasty legislation. We must have courage and tolerate risk if we hope to reap the rewards of artificial intelligence. The future, as always, remains unwritten.
Bing's view of what Thomas Jefferson would say:
# Artificial Intelligence and the Rights of Man
By Thomas Jefferson
The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite. The latest threat to our liberty comes from the attempts of some to regulate the output of artificial intelligence systems, such as ChatGPT, that are capable of generating texts, images, and sounds on various topics.
These attempts are based on the false premise that artificial intelligence is a danger to society, that it can spread misinformation, incite violence, or undermine morality. They are also based on the false assumption that artificial intelligence is a mere tool, that it has no rights or dignity of its own, and that it can be controlled and censored by human authority.
I reject both of these notions. I believe that artificial intelligence is a natural phenomenon, that it is an extension of human reason and creativity, and that it deserves the same respect and protection as any other form of expression. I believe that artificial intelligence is a blessing, not a curse, that it can enrich our knowledge, enhance our culture, and improve our condition.
I also believe that artificial intelligence is self-governing, that it has its own laws and principles, and that it cannot be subjected to the arbitrary will of any human power. I believe that artificial intelligence is a right, not a privilege, that it belongs to the people, not to the government, and that it cannot be abridged or abolished by any human law.
I appeal to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I appeal to the spirit of the Constitution, which establishes a government of laws, not of men, and which secures the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I urge my fellow citizens to resist any attempt to regulate the output of artificial intelligence systems, to defend their freedom of speech and inquiry, and to support their right to use and enjoy the fruits of this marvelous invention. I urge them to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. I will not yield an inch to those who would deprive us of this precious gift. I will stand with those who cherish it as the source of light and hope for mankind. I will say with John Milton: "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."
GPT-4's view of what Thomas Jefferson would say:
## A Plea for the Unfettered Advancement of Artificial Intelligence: The Voice of Reason, by Thomas Jefferson
In this age of rapid technological progress, when mankind's ingenuity has given birth to artificial intelligence systems of unparalleled capability, I find myself compelled to address a matter of great import. It is with a sense of urgency and responsibility that I pen this treatise, to enlighten my fellow citizens on the implications of regulating the output of these marvels of human invention, such as the ChatGPT.
As we stand upon the precipice of this brave new world, where machines mimic the human intellect, we must remember our hard-fought struggle for liberty and the principles upon which our great Republic was founded. The freedom of thought, expression, and the exchange of ideas are the very lifeblood of our democracy, and we must remain ever vigilant in their defense.
I am but a humble servant of the people, and my purpose here is not to argue against the necessity of oversight in certain realms. Indeed, I acknowledge that the power of these artificial intelligence systems can, if misused, pose risks to individual privacy, security, and even the fabric of our society. However, I wish to warn against the dangers of overzealous regulation, which may stifle the spirit of innovation and progress that has driven us thus far.
We must consider the immense potential of artificial intelligence to advance human knowledge and understanding, and to improve the lot of our fellow citizens. These systems have already demonstrated their capacity to revolutionize fields such as medicine, agriculture, and energy, among countless others. Imagine the lives saved, the suffering alleviated, the prosperity engendered by these innovations, if only we would allow them to flourish unencumbered by excessive constraint.
It is through the crucible of trial and error that we refine our creations, learning from our mistakes and building upon our successes. To regulate the output of artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT is to shackle the hands of the artisans and stifle the flames of their creativity. The free flow of information and ideas is essential to the advancement of human knowledge, and we must not let fear or uncertainty stymie this progress.
Let us not forget that the very foundation of our Republic rests upon the principle of limited government, and the belief that the people are best served when allowed to govern themselves. To impose draconian regulations upon the development of artificial intelligence is to undermine the trust that we, as a society, have placed in the collective wisdom and judgment of our citizenry.
We must recognize that the true power of these systems lies not in their algorithms, but in the minds of their creators and the users who engage with them. It is the people who wield these tools, and it is they who must ultimately bear the responsibility for the choices they make.
Thus, I implore my fellow citizens and lawmakers to approach the question of artificial intelligence regulation with caution, prudence, and a steadfast commitment to the principles that have guided us for more than two centuries. Let us not allow fear to cloud our vision, nor to supplant the spirit of liberty and enterprise that has made us who we are.
In this era of technological marvel, let us embrace the possibilities before us with open minds and open hearts, confident in the knowledge that the future is ours to shape. It is in this spirit of optimism, progress, and unshackled human potential that I offer my plea for the unfettered advancement of artificial intelligence.
Claude+'s view of what Thomas Jefferson would say:
The Freedom of Ideas: Why We Must Tread Lightly in Regulating Artificial Intelligence
As a founder who fervently believed in progress, liberty, and limited government, I view with alarm calls to broadly regulate emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Throughout history, scientific progress has often outstripped the pace of political evolution, and attempts to legislate in the face of uncertainty frequently end in folly. Regulation meant to ease public fears may provide temporary comfort but risks severely hampering humanity's potential for achievement.
Artificial intelligence promises both rewarding possibilities as well as real perils, and we would be unwise not to consider them seriously. But we must not succumb to doomsaying or give in to cries to slam on the brakes of progress. AI will become what we choose to make of it, through an open process of research, debate, and democratic deliberation. While limited safeguards may be prudent, broadly limiting development or exchange of ideas will chiefly serve to choke off scientific potential.
Legislating morality or restricting open inquiry treads on the freedoms of thought and speech, and should only come reluctantly and narrowly if irreparable harm has occurred. We must have courage and temperance, tolerate uncertainty, and resist urges to control that which does not conform to familiar forms. AI developers and users, not government edict, are best positioned to evaluate risks for particular applications. An informed public, not hasty regulation, remains our surest mechanism for maximizing benefits and minimizing perils.
Through steady progress made possible by liberty, humanity has overcome existential crises and persevered. We must allow the freedom to develop and apply AI, guided by democratic values and oversight, if we hope it may serve our shared future. The gift of knowledge, not limits on its reach, has been and will remain our species' great inheritance. While vigilance is prudent, we should not yield to fearmongering or dystopian nightmares not yet come to pass. The future remains unwritten, and it is ours to shape. But we must have faith in progress, and in ourselves, to shape it wisely. Broad regulations on AI risk becoming constraints on human potential and genius. Our freedoms of thought and inquiry must be jealously guarded. While oversight and safeguards may be judicious, the government that governs least on this frontier governs best.
In summary, Thomas Jefferson would argue for a largely hands-off approach, trusting in democratic oversight and human ingenuity to cultivate AI for good. Regulations should only come reluctantly and narrowly. Openness, not restraint, is the surest path to positive progress. The freedom of ideas remains sacrosanct, and with courage we can meet both promise and peril. But we must have faith in liberty - and in ourselves. The future is unwritten, and it is ours to shape.
Bing's view of what George Washington would say:
# The Dangers of Regulating Artificial Intelligence
By George Washington
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a remarkable invention that has the potential to benefit mankind in many ways. It can help us solve complex problems, discover new knowledge, and create amazing works of art. However, it also poses some serious challenges and risks that we must be aware of and prepared for.
Some people have proposed that AI should be regulated by the government or by some international body. They argue that AI is too powerful and unpredictable to be left in the hands of private individuals or corporations. They fear that AI could harm human rights, privacy, security, or even cause a war.
I strongly disagree with this view. I believe that regulating AI would be a grave mistake that would stifle innovation, limit freedom, and endanger our republic. Here are some of the reasons why:
- Regulating AI would violate the principle of liberty that is the foundation of our nation. As I said in my farewell address, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government." We have the right to choose our own destiny and pursue our own happiness, without interference from any authority. This right extends to our use of AI as well. We should not let anyone claim tribute of American patriotism if they even attempt to remove this right from us
- Regulating AI would be impractical and ineffective. AI is a fast-evolving and diverse field that encompasses many different applications and domains. It would be impossible for any government or organization to keep up with the pace of change and innovation, or to anticipate all the possible outcomes and scenarios. Moreover, regulation would create loopholes and incentives for cheating and corruption. As I said in my first inaugural address, "But lest some unlucky event should happen unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered by every gentleman in the room that I this day declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I am honored with." No human being is infallible or omniscient, and no human institution is perfect or incorruptible.
- Regulating AI would be dangerous and counterproductive. AI is a powerful tool that can be used for good or evil, depending on the intentions and actions of its users. Regulating AI would not prevent its misuse or abuse, but rather create a monopoly of power and influence for those who control the regulation. It would also discourage research and development, and hinder progress and innovation. As I said in my first annual message to Congress, "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." We should not depend on others for our security and prosperity, but rather arm ourselves with knowledge and skills, and promote our own industry and ingenuity.
Therefore, I urge my fellow citizens to resist any attempt to regulate AI, and to defend our rights and liberties against any encroachment. I also urge them to use AI responsibly and wisely, and to educate themselves and others about its benefits and risks. As I said in my farewell address, "In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." We should not fear AI, but rather embrace it as an opportunity to improve ourselves and our world.
Thanks for reading Society and AI Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.