Tag Archives: artifical intelligence (AI)

Pros and Cons of AI

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.  

All changes have advantages and disadvantages. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no exception. Because the impact of AI is going to affect all of us in some way or another, we should take a look at what is already happening and what is likely to happen. What’s more, the idea of creating an intelligence that rivals and may exceed human capabilities warrants special caution. Let’s start off with what we already know of the pros of AI.

The idea of creating artificial intelligence is not new; the possibility has been around ever since the invention of computers. AI has already been shown to be capable of data processing and linking at speeds and accuracy well beyond the human mind. Like automated machines used in manufacturing, the accuracy and precision of production is greater than humans. Machines do not get tired, do not need lunch breaks, sleep, or overtime pay. Same thing with AI, only more so. For example, students can now access AI to write reports on many topics. AI scans and collects the facts from the internet, and assembles the information in a manner that duplicates what a human can do. AI can also duplicate the human voice making it impossible to distinguish from the actual person. The autopen on steroids.

From a military perspective, AI will be used in advanced weapon systems that will enhance their potency and accuracy. Consider what is happening with the first “ war of the drones” now occurring between Russian and Ukraine. Fewer humans will be placed in harm’s way, as the combat role of humans is replaced by machines. Wars between robot armies are on the horizon. In medicine, not only is accurate diagnosis enhanced because AI will not fail to consider all the possible facts, but AI may produce more successful surgical outcomes because of greater accuracy and precise movements. This has already started with some surgical procedures that us robotic techniques and instrument control.

The development of AI and its application in all aspects of human activity is already occurring and is likely to accelerate. Countries will not be able to neglect AI if they hope to remain competitive and to be able to defend themselves from potential adversaries. Now, let’s examine some of the cons of AI. One immediate impact will be on the need for human workers. For example, high tech companies have been reducing their workforces as AI is developed. Over the past two years, the following layoffs have occurred:  Amazon: 30,000; Microsoft: 35,000; Google: 20,000; Meta: 23,000 and UPS: 14,000. Now not all of these layoffs are directly related to AI, but many of them are. Many of the jobs are high tech programming and code writing which AI is being created to do itself.   Who needs humans?

Another area of concern is energy consumption. For example, it takes 10 times the amount of electricity to conduct an AI search compared to a regular internet search. A recent report on Barclay.com indicated that the expanded use of AI data centers will increase the demand on the electric grid by 25% per year for the foreseeable future. Obviously, the existing electric grid cannot meet that demand without substantial expansion in generating power. Wind and solar will not help in the slightest. Expansion could be through more nuclear plants. However, the current restrictions and regulations can be prohibitive.  There has not been a new nuclear power plant built in North Carolina for over forty years. Some are suggesting the use of smaller nuclear reactors, about one-third of the reactors currently in place. Theoretically, these could be located near to the AI data centers reducing the demand for transmission wires. A troubling trend is being implemented by local power companies like Tidewater. Starting in January, electricity rates per KWH will depend on the time of the day the electricity is used. Not good. This plan reduces your freedom to use electricity when you decide and allows the company to dictate your access. Instead of manipulating demand, they should be increasing their generating capacity. China has been building coal fired plants for years and will be able to meet their demands. We have been handcuffed by the environmental extremists who fear monger about climate change. Through executive order 14241, President Trump has significantly reduced the restrictions on building coal fired plants, especially the additional restrictions placed by the Biden administration. There is no reason why electric companies should not immediately return to building coal fired plants, especially since coal is one of our greatest resources. Until recently, Bill Gates had believed that climate change caused by burning fossil fuels was an existential threat. He has done an about face, and now says that climate change is not a threat! That shows what a hoax the whole climate change scare has been.

Besides these practical problems, the potential impact on humans must be considered. Are we creating something with more brain power than we have? AI is not only capable of learning and thinking faster and more accurately than humans, it has the potential to learn how to control itself. A few months ago, there was a report in the Epoch Times newspaper about an AI system that would not allow itself to be shut down by its human creators! Will these systems take on a will of their own? Who knows, but it could happen. Also, as humans rely more and more on AI for such things as data gathering and analysis, what happens to the skill level of humans who are now performing these functions? Our intelligence is based on using our brains to solve complex problems and think for ourselves. With increased reliance on AI, will we get dumber? How about the impact on our self-esteem? Most people feel good when they accomplish a challenging task. With AI performing these tasks, what are humans good for? Not much I suppose. As we get dumber and less ambitious, AI takes over more and more of human activities. AI becomes the master and we become the slaves. As we become more dependent on AI and lose our skills and abilities, what happens if AI destructs? Power outage? Hacking into the system? Something to think about.

While it is true that AI development is rushing forward, we need to think about what we are creating and the pros and cons of how far we go. AI has the potential to be one of the most powerful and life altering inventions in the history of mankind.  Let’s make sure that it will enhance our lives, and not be our undoing as human beings.

There Is A Certain Amount Of Self Interest In This Decision

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The New York Post posted an article about the sudden change of heart by Bill Gates about climate change. You will have to excuse the amount of cynicism I have relating to this change. There are two major factors involved. One factor is the Trump effect on globalism–those moving toward one-world government are not currently getting the traction they were getting during the Biden administration. Argentina and America have shown that cutting government fat and promoting patriotism is a positive thing. The political left’s attempt to label patriotism as nationalism and paint nationalism as a bad thing is beginning to fail. The other factor is that Bill Gates is working to be a leader in the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). Green energy and AI are not compatible–the amount of energy required by AI is enormous. We will need to develop new sources of energy and increase our use of old sources of energy to support AI. Those are the reasons I believe Bill Gates has changed his tune on global warming and green energy.

The New York Post reports:

Suddenly, Bill Gates is admitting that climate change won’t lead to “humanity’s demise” after all.

Now he tells us, after he long joined other climate alarmists in warning of “disaster,” as the West burned trillions on “decarbonizing” and steered economies toward the stone age.

The “doomsday view” that “cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization” is “wrong,” the Microsoft co-founder writes; people will “be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”

It should also be noted that in the past when there were periods of global warming, there was more food to feed people and fewer people died from exposure to cold.

The article notes:

Gates still thinks it’s a “serious” problem, but admits “the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals” and “diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.”

That’s precisely what moderates, like economist Bjorn Lomborg, and most conservatives have said for years.

The chief goal should be “improving lives” — not trying to end all carbon-fuel use, especially when China is still relentlessly building coal plants.

Like Lomborg, Gates now acknowledges that greater “prosperity” can let mankind cope just fine as the planet warms: “The faster people become prosperous and healthy, the more lives we can save.”

The article concludes:

If Gates wants any credit for belatedly seeing the light, he needs to put maximum effort into getting the left’s climate warriors to wake up, too.

The Ugly After The Flood

Posted on by

The floods in Texas were horrific. There were heroes, but there were tremendous losses. Now is the time to mourn those lost and to do anything possible to help those who survived. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. Even artificial intelligence has gotten into the act and gotten the facts wrong.

In an article posted at Substack on Monday, Don Surber reports:

Jason Runyen, a meteorologist in the National Weather Service office, told AP that with the storm brewing, the office had 5 staffers instead of just 2. This was a holiday weekend. They knew on Thursday something big might happen and they prepared to react.

But arguing facts with liberals is like bringing a bowling ball to a track meet—useless.

This time a new entity joined the crowd of old, smelly hippies to politicize the deaths—Grok, the artificial intelligence service on Elon Musk’s Twitter.

Saturday morning, Grok proclaimed, “Yes. Trump’s 2025 cuts slashed NOAA/NWS funding by ~30% and staff by 17%, impairing forecast accuracy. Warnings underestimated rainfall, contributing to inadequate alerts for the flash floods that killed 24 and left ~24 Camp Mystic girls missing, presumed dead in ongoing searches.”

Conservatives bit back. Hard.

Lucy Stone tweeted, “Budget cuts have not gone into effect yet, Grok. They are scheduled for next year.”

Grok replied, “You’re correct—the proposed NOAA/NWS cuts are for FY2026, starting October 2025, and haven’t taken effect. My prior response erred on timing. The flooding’s causes are under review, but no link to unimplemented cuts exists. Thanks for the clarification.”

Erred on the timing?

Pudge tweeted, “Stop lying. There’s literally no evidence that forecasts were impaired by cuts.”

Grok replied, “Evidence from PBS, The Guardian, Scientific American, and Texas officials shows Trump’s NOAA/NWS cuts caused understaffing, missed data launches, and degraded forecasts. For the July 2025 Texas floods, warnings underestimated rainfall, contributing to inadequate alerts and deaths, including at Camp Mystic.”

Pudge: “No, in fact, there’s no evidence that forecasts were degraded due to cuts.”

Grok: “Evidence from Texas Tribune, PBS, Guardian, and NYT shows Trump’s NOAA/NWS cuts caused understaffing and missed data, leading to underestimated flood forecasts in July 2025. Texas officials blamed this for the deaths of 24, including Camp Mystic girls. Denying it ignores facts.”

I asked Grok what the political biases are for those sources. It replied:

    • PBS: Center, slight left lean on social issues.
    • The Guardian: Left-leaning, progressive editorial stance.
    • Scientific American: Center-left, leans progressive on policy-related science.
    • Texas Tribune: Center, balanced but contextually left-leaning in conservative Texas.

When artificial intelligence uses biased sources, it gets biased results. Fake news is alive and well.

The Fallout From The Iberian Blackout

Posted on by

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about the future of energy transition from fossil fuels to green energy. It’s not looking good.

The article reports:

It’s no secret that the Republican’s “Big Beautiful Bill” plans to axe large swaths of mandates and billions of dollars in subsidies directed at achieving a so-called “energy transition.” If that budget axe falls, it will be the proverbial third strike that puts to rest the idea that the U.S., never mind the world, will abandon fossil fuels. The other two strikes already happened.

Strike two came last month with the Great Iberian blackout. Preliminary forensics make clear that over-enthusiastic deployment of unreliable solar and wind power was the fulcrum that put 55 million people in the dark for days. Few politicians will want to risk allowing something like that to happen again, anywhere. And, as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation keeps warning, blackout risks are rising here, and for the same reason. Reliability used to be the core feature of electric grid designs, before the rush to push an energy transition in service of climate goals.

And strike one came a few weeks prior to the Iberian calamity with the release of a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled Energy and AI. That report sought to answer the question about how to reliably meet the surprising jump in power demands expected in the coming decade’s boom in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. Answering that also answers, even if not intentionally, the same question about meeting society’s future demands.

The article concludes:

This doesn’t mean Big Tech or the IEA are backing off climate pledges. Nor does it mean the climate debate is settled. Nor will we see any diminution in transition fervor from the climate-industrial complex. Likely that fervor heats up as the Trump Administration attempts to deliver on its promise to defund the panoply of climate-energy programs marbled throughout federal agencies.

What it does mean is that whatever one believes about the science of the climate, the fact is that mandates and subsidies can’t change the physics of energy systems. Systems that can deliver reliable power at the scales necessary for robust growth remain anchored in precisely the fuels the transitionists want to abandon.

Fossil fuels are not perfect (although natural gas is close), but they have been the backbone of the world’s economy for generations. It is possible that one day green energy can discover the technology to make it as reliable and inexpensive as fossil fuel, but that has not yet happened. The best way to spur on the green energy research is to get the governments out of it and let the inventors and private investors make a profit.

The Death Of The Fourth Estate

Posted on by

On Thursday, Just the News posted an article about the American government’s latest efforts to muffle the free speech of any American who does not agree with the aims of the government.

The article reports:

The government’s campaign to fight “misinformation” has expanded to adapt military-grade artificial intelligence once used to silence the Islamic State (ISIS) to quickly identify and censor American dissent on issues like vaccine safety and election integrity, according to grant documents and cyber experts.

Some of us have real questions as to what constitutes “misinformation.” Vaccine safety is an issue for those who have been impacted by the side effects of the Covid vaccine. There are an awful lot of people under the age of 40 experiencing sudden (and sometimes fatal) heart problems. Dissent is part of what made America great, and it should not be discouraged. I am all for protests–I am not for riots, and I think it’s time the media learned the difference.

The article continues:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded several million dollars in grants recently to universities and private firms to develop tools eerily similar to those developed in 2011 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in its Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program.

DARPA said those tools were used “to help identify misinformation or deception campaigns and counter them with truthful information,” beginning with the Arab Spring uprisings in the the Middle East that spawned ISIS over a decade ago. 

The initial idea was to track dissidents who were interested in toppling U.S.-friendly regimes or to follow any potentially radical threats by examining political posts on Big Tech platforms. 

DARPA set four specific goals for the program:

    1. “Detect, classify, measure and track the (a) formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes), and (b) purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation.
    2. Recognize persuasion campaign structures and influence operations across social media sites and communities.
    3. Identify participants and intent, and measure effects of persuasion campaigns.
    4. Counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.

This sounds like something that belongs in a dictatorship–not a republic.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is frightening. There is nothing in our Constitution that allows this sort of interference with the free thinking of the American people.