"Artificial Intelligence vs. Individualism"

 Title of the photo: “Man In Casual Dress Who Is Ignorant of AI”

 

...................

 

The refusal of allies like Germany, Japan and Australia to aid in the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz reminds me of the American fable, “The Little Red Hen.” Once it is re-opened, and it will be re-opened, I am sure they will want to be included in the safe passage of oil and gas. And it is my guess that President Trump will be more forgiving than the Little Red Hen.

 

At a time when partisanship runs high, I was pleased that Democrats David Boies, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein wrote two op-eds for The Wall Street Journal over the past few days, each calling out the danger and risk of extreme partisanship on the part of politicians and the media at a time when the U.S. is at war with Iran: “Partisanship on Iran is Dangerous” by Boies on March 13, and “On Iran, Is Only Bad News Fit to Print?” by Penn and Stein on March 17. It is healthy to criticize politicians and their policies, but Trump Derangement Syndrome has rendered criticism of the President by those politicians and reporters who manifest its symptoms unintelligible and harmful to our national interests.

 

I support the decision to attack Iran. When a fanatical leader who promised ‘Death to America’ and who leads a regime that pursued nuclear weapons with missiles capable of carrying them thousands of miles, pre-emption is preferred to retaliation.

 

....................

 

As for AI, I may be Panglossian about its threats. like it or not it is here to stay. No one can forecast the future. This is but one man’s opinion.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Artificial Intelligence vs. Individualism”

March 18, 2026

 

“Metacognitive skills will be very important – flexibility, adaptability, experimentation, thinking

critically, being able to challenge things...For that, a traditional liberal arts education is really important.”

                                                                                Jaime Teevan

                                                                                Chief Scientist and Technical Fellow, Microsoft

                                                                                As quoted in The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2026

                                                                                “What AI Bosses Advise Their Kids About Jobs,” Lauren Weber

 

If the adjective ‘metacognitive’ is for you as unfamiliar, as it was for me, here is the definition provided by Google for the noun Metacognition: “Often described as ‘thinking about your thinking.’ It involves understanding your own thought processes and using that awareness to direct your learning.” It sounds to me that if one has ‘metacognitive skills’ they have basically mastered the art of critical thinking.

 

..............................................................................................................................

 

No one can tell you what the specific consequences of AI will be on employment and on lives. What can be said is that there will be ramifications. Some – perhaps many – will be negative for the employment of large numbers of people. What also can be said is that this is not the first time mankind has faced revolutionary changes. Consider those wrought by the Industrial Revolution, which saw the shift from hand/home-based production and small shops to machines and large factories – factories initially powered by coal and steam and now by natural gas, nuclear and renewables. It was a revolution that began in England in the late 18^th Century and has persisted through the current day. People adapted. Thus, we should take comfort as we look to this next stage. Despite the displacement of millions of jobs, employment and living standards increased over the last two hundred and fifty years. According to ScienceDirect.com, between 80% and 90% of the world’s population lived in “extreme poverty” in the late 18^th Century. Today the World Bank puts that number at less than ten percent.

 

That is not to say we should be blithely unconcerned about the changes that will be wrought as artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous. We need to know its cost, the effects on existing businesses, and the opportunities it will create.

 

.................................................................................................................

 

Charles Darwin argued persuasively in The Descent of Man and On the Origin of Species that we have common ancestry with apes, and that all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism. However, somewhere along the line, man became differentiated from other animals – in his capacity to think critically, to reason abstractly, in his sense of morality and ability to empathize, in his ability to plan for the future, to conceptualize, to be curious and creative. Whether that was natural selection or divine intervention, I leave to others. AI is a creation of the curious and creative. But will a machine ever have those qualities attributed to men and women? I don’t think so.

 

Lauren Weber interviewed five individuals for the Journal article quoted in the epigraph above. They all recognized that rote/routine jobs are at risk; so they emphasized the importance of critical thinking and the need for humanities, both provided by a liberal arts education – now “more than ever,” according to Ethan Mollick, management professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

Similarly, in the March 9, 2026 issue of The Spectator, Eamonn Butler, the British economist and co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute, wrote: “...AI augments (emphasis mine) human capabilities, creates demand for new skills in oversight, ethics and creative applications, and drives productivity gains that fuel economic expansion.” In 2025, most of our GDP growth came from productivity gains. It was not technological change that concerned Adam Smith, it was mercantilism and the protectionism it fosters. “Why,” Mr. Mr. Butler wrote, “try to make wine in rainy Scotland, when you can buy it for a thirtieth of the price from sunny France?” What would concern Adam Smith today is the scale of government: “To him, the core functions of government were defense, the administration of justice, and the provisions [that] limited the number of public goods, mostly for infrastructure, which made trade and commerce and thus wealth creation easier.” With total U.S. government spending approaching 38% of GDP in 2025, Adam Smith would be aghast.  

 

.................................................................................................................

 

Change is a constant. In the past, technological change eliminated many jobs but created millions more. Will AI replace many current jobs? Certainly. But think of the past. It helps one see the future. Steamships replaced sailing vessels; trains, autos, airplanes revolutionized travel; lap-top and desk-top computers did away with typewriters. When was the last time you saw a switchboard operator or an elevator man? In this time of AI’s infancy we know jobs will be lost. What we don’t know is what new industries and jobs will be created.

 

My biggest worry about AI is how it will be used by scammers. And I worry that government, in regulating it, might impose limits on individual rights. Skepticism is warranted. But I do not fear AI. Of course I am not twenty-five, just starting a job. If I were, I would try to understand how it might be utilized to improve my life. Nevertheless, it is here and will become more complex over time. Embrace it. If it becomes frightening, turn off its power source or remove its battery.[1] I have always thought Peter Drucker (1909-2005) a wise man. A quote attributed to him sums up his philosophy: “To get at the new and better, you have to throw out the old, outworn and obsolete...” He would embrace AI.

 

According to the Worldometer there are 8.3 billion people on Earth. Each has distinct, individual traits, along with strengths and weaknesses. Among them are scientists and artists, musicians and carpenters, lawyers and plumbers, farmers and bankers. They are athletes, poets, actresses and actors. Scattered among them are a few who are evil, but more who are good. Can AI replace them and their dreams? No. So long as our rights, embedded in our Constitution, are honored, the individual will survive and thrive.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] As solar-paneled-fueled data centers get placed in space (think SpaceX, Project Suncatcher and Stoke Space), with full access to net-worked computers on Earth, that may not be possible.

"[Almost] Nothing in Life is Static"

The attached photo, taken a few days ago, captured a moment in time: A quarter moon positioned between curtains of trees, rising over Mud River Swamp in Essex, CT. But nothing stood still. The moon floated higher in the sky, the clouds moved north, and the wind rustled the leaves.

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

More Essays from Essex

“[Almost] Nothing in Life is Static”

September 6, 2025

 

“The only constant is change.”

                                                                           Attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c.500 BCE)               

                                                                           who believed that the universe is in a continuous state of

                                                                           movement and transformation.

 

That nature is not static is an acknowledged truth– not the universe, climate, plants, animals, nor the mass that comprises the Earth. They are all in a continuing state of flux, adapting to changing conditions. Few things in our lives – apart from history, art, our pasts and a moral code – are static, not politics, jobs, nor our relationships, which require care and attention. Perfection may be sought but is never discovered: Consider Pone de León’s search for the ‘Fountain of Youth,’ or Dorian Gray’s desire for eternal youth.

 

If science teaches us anything about the world around us, it is that evolution allows species to adapt to changing environments. All living matter is born, lives and dies. Inanimate objects are subject to erosion, volcanic activity, etc. It is why, in matters like the environment, the word “conserves” rather than “preserves” more accurately conveys what environmentalists seek. The former implies responsible behavior to protect something from harm or destruction; the latter suggests maintaining the status quo, which is alien to natural changes.  

 

To deal with this persistently fluid world, man created religion to help understand the inexplicable; fostered customs and traditions, like marriage, partnerships and codes of conduct to bring structure and stability; formed clubs and societies to satisfy a need for companionship; built cities to ease commerce, and erected governments and made laws to bring order to what would otherwise be anarchial lives.

 

I have been reading Paul Andrew Hutton’s monumental history of the American west, The Undiscovered Country. The book is instructional on many levels, but an aspect that struck me was the nomadic life of most North American Indians, in the18^th and 19^thcenturies, as hunting, fishing and trapping sustained them. The western movement of European settlers threatened their hunting grounds, but so did other Indian tribes, and alliances with European powers. Their mobile lives stood in contrast to the more staid civilizations built by Aztecs in what is now Mexico and Incas along the Andean Mountains. It makes one ponder: Were those who built cities looking for stability in a peripatetic world? Or were leaders simply seeking power and wealth? Why were cities and civilizations created two to four thousand years ago in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and later ones in Rome and Greece, while Celtics and Germanics roamed central Europe, and myriad tribes persisted as hunters and gatherers in Africa, the Americas and parts of Asia? Why?

 

Survival and economic growth (or the need for room to grow) explain the competition for resources between opposing tribes, peoples and nations, making understandable why they fought, perhaps explaining  why killings and enslavement were common. As Darwin demonstrated, survival went to the fittest. Today, the world faces two distinctive alternatives – the authoritarianism of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, or the liberal world order of Western nations, led by the United States, Europe, Japan, India, South Korea and Taiwan. Which will attract the uncommitted?

 

We all strive for security and stability, yet change is (or should be) a natural aspect of democracies. Over the past 80 years, Republicans and Democrats have equally divided time in the White House, a healthy division. Yet, the opposite is true when it comes to big cities and state Congressional delegations. Of the eleven cities in the U.S. with over a million people only one (Dallas) has a Republican mayor. A second (Honolulu) has an Independent as mayor. The rest have Democrat mayors – not positive for democracy. And, in the current Congress, 40% of the states have single party delegations – twelve Republican-only states and eight Democrat-only states, an unhealthy division.

 

There are, however, things that do not change. Works of art, unless vandalized or censored: the music of Beethoven, the plays of Shakespeare, the paintings of Monet, the statues of Michelangelo, the poetry of Whitman. The past can be reinterpreted, but cannot be changed. But most important – what does not change are the principle of right and wrong, the presence of good and evil, and those self-evident, “unalienable truths” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – gifts endowed by our Creator – and embedded in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. 

 

Nevertheless, in most aspects of our physical lives, change is a force for good. Think of improvements in health, transportation, foods, and communication. Standards of living have improved immensely over the past centuries. While there has been a slight decline in the percent of the world’s population living in democracies over the past few years, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, the numbers are up substantially over the past 100 years. Just as we should celebrate those things that do not change, we should applaud those that do.

 

While I am not a fatalist – a belief that our futures are foretold – I recognize that much of what happens is beyond our control – deadly diseases, earthquakes, reckless drivers, hurricanes, terrorists. I also know we have choices, and that it is necessary to adapt to a changing environment and an unknowable future.