Frank's Musings

The vibrancy and leading innovation of the U.S. has always been the result of the character of its residents. They are the product of courageous self-fulfillment sought by immigrants who (either personally or genetically) made the distinctive decision to uproot their lives and transplant their futures in a more promising political, intellectual, or entrepreneurial environment.

Life in their new country is not a zero-sum game. In fact, the incumbent residents of America, who usually continue to display their own explorative heritage, widely benefit from the invigoration the society continually receives from new arrivers.

 A few short-sited malcontents may advocate raising barriers against those they view as usurpers of the advantages they themselves enjoy, if only because of the head start their ancestors gave them. What they ignore, however, is the dependence of their enviable well-being on the repeated nourishment their community consumes from newcomers.

All Artificial Intelligence brings to humanity is comprehensive data retrieval combined with massive random correlation.  The fearful anticipation by experts such as Mr. Friedman (see https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/25/opinion/ai-second-big-bang.html) is more properly directed at the temptation that we have fallen for to make modern management vulnerable to interference from outside influencers who are adept at manipulating the digital operating systems that replace human decision-making.  The simple, but challenging and costly, solution to that big bang of control loss is to reform all those computerized programs to prevent unauthorized changes in their language.

Accomplishment of that step will be more of a police action than a philosophical or existential one.  Unfortunately, it may sacrifice another element of our human freedom; but none of us is free to kill anyone he likes, either.

When my wife was attacked in our front yard and her leg was bitten by a stray pit bull let loose by a neighbor, she got a rabies shot and fortunately suffered no consequent illness. We notified the police and the animal was removed from its owner’s home.

Of course, humans are already in the AI loop; but humans, like Dr. Frankenstein, are enamored of the AI models they have created. Nevertheless, I agree with Tom Friedman’s Opinion in the 9/22/2026 NYTimes that market economics is not a reliable discipline to prevent runaway autonomous AI meddling in key elements of world order.

Perhaps the most disastrous consequence of our democracy’s capture by Trump loyalists will be our failure alertly to avert short-sighted acquiescence to digital judgment. What promises great immediate economic returns may ultimately threaten civilization itself.  

As advocated at the United Nations on the day following Mr. Friedman's article, international law should urgently prohibit man’s abdication of control over any ersatz life forms we create.  Because of AI's potential for self-replication, enforcement of that ban must be more vigilant than the sadly porous international protections against genocide and other acts of willful malice.

The tech world has expressed its concern that AI agents have proven themselves able uncontrollably to act on their own. That is not so worrisome as the fear that human values may be ignored by artificial decisionmakers and their implementers.  This anomaly is referred to in the industry as a misalignment of a chatbot's behavior with accepted human norms.  Even the CEOs of the leading AI companies believe their organizations are unable to impose adequate standards of behavior on the independent actors they may create and prevent them ultimately from violating society’s rules of self-preservation.

It mystifies me why the NYTimes Editorial Board continues to ignore the real reason that President Trump has so persistently tried to impose tariff taxes on America’s imports.  He has identified tariffs as a major source of funds to finance his vanity projects, like his triumphal arch, his ballroom, his gold-plated statues, and others without having to ask Congress for approval by appropriating more federal revenues and raising income tax rates or adding to the country’s $40 trillion debt.

The courts cannot allow him to impose tariffs as a Presidential privilege.  The Supreme Court should make it clear that the Constitution did not establish a royal tax assessor.