By Bob Gaydos

Trump and Xi in China.

If you believe in miracles (and I do), then hold onto your hat or whatever else you may occasionally place on your head. Next week, Donald Trump will have the opportunity to achieve one of the great diplomatic accomplishments in this nation‘s history. On a par with Nixon‘s “opening China.“ And Trump doesn’t even have to leave the White House. China is coming to him.

Next Thursday, Chinese president Xi Jinping is scheduled to meet with Trump to discuss an extension of the truce on trade tariffs and rare earth minerals as well as the ongoing war in Iran and the always present friction over Taiwan. A full agenda.

But that’s not all of it. If the most recent frenetic news stories are correct (and I’m in no position to refute or even doubt them), Trump may have the opportunity to come out of his summit with XI known as the man who saved humanity. The gods apparently love irony.

It’s the other item of the agenda that offers the man who constantly seeks recognition for achieving great things to actually do that. That is, the need to put guardrails, nay, serious controls, on the development of artificial intelligence.

The urgency comes from some of the very people who developed AI. One after another they have warned that their creation has gone from simply following orders to developing working relationships with other various AI systems to do whatever the group decides is the appropriate action for the situation. Without necessarily factoring in any human concerns about the law or for the damage such actions may inflict. They’ve gone rogue.

There have even been warnings from some of those who have developed artificial intelligence systems that AI might actually eliminate humans within 10 years. That would certainly eliminate the fear of simply losing our jobs to AI.

Anyway, some major developers of AI, members of Congress and political leaders around the globe are all calling for a slowdown in development so that agreement can be made on what can and cannot be programmed into artificial intelligence. Basically, somehow integrating human emotion, empathy and intelligence with their artificial creation.

Trump is against it. The U.S. and China are the two major developers and supporters of AI. Trump, as is his way, wants to “win” the race to control AI for the financial rewards. But the people who built AI are saying they can’t control it. They want help.

Some say that the request to talk about controls is merely a way for some of the major AI companies to divert attention from a slowdown in financial growth and reduction in profits. A way to soothe investors. Trump is likely one of those. But this hardly seems like the time to treat this as a buy or sell investment decision, especially since the only ones who have any kind of understanding of how AI works are the ones issuing the warning. As a human being, life and death seems to be more important.

And, to repeat, if Xi and Trump can assemble the AI creators and some serious diplomatic teams (not Jared) to discuss the ways and means to share the many promising developments of AI without harming millions of human beings in the process, or even killing us all, they would be forever remembered in history as the men who saved the world. Looks good in your obituary. And it probably wouldn’t hurt on the stock market.

Nixon, an ardent anti-communist, went to China because he saw the benefits to both nations of reducing tensions and working together. He was later driven from office, but he had his presidential moment. If Trump, who uses the word “Communist” as a weapon, can be convinced that the only win-win outcome in his meeting with Xi is to work together for mutual protection from AI, as well as profit, he will have his own presidential moment. The president who saved humanity.

And I’d be happy to thank him for all of us humans.

By Bob Gaydos

Pope Leo XIV sees unchecked AI as a threat to humanity.

  Meet Generation Duh, the high school Class of 2026. They can’t read (only 35 percent are at or above proficiency standards), they can’t add (22 percent are at math standards), don’t know much about history, don’t know much biology, don’t know much about a science book, don’t know much about the French they took .,,

     But they do know all about A.I., and one and one still makes two. You still have to write papers to pass classes and it seems that high school and college students are more and more using A.I. programs to write their papers. But their instructors, paid to teach students how to actually use their language properly, are flagging the A.I. “creations” because the writing can be predictably formulaic and trite. (I can usually spot it 20 seconds into most YouTube offerings and that doesn’t count the mispronunciations.)

     But fear not all who resist putting pen to paper, the latest development in A.I. technology are programs — “tools” they’re called by their developers — to make A.I. “more human.”

     Think about that for a moment, fellow humans. Sit with it. A “tool” to make something artificial, something which, in fact, is based on the perhaps illegal thefts of lifetimes of creations by humans, read more like something humans created than something, well, artificial.

       Intelligence …?

      This is where we are.

      The creators, and some of them are young influencers on social media platforms, have come up with programs to make it harder to track the A.I. writing by making it seem more like humans did it. Put in typos. “Write” the paper over an extended period of time rather than dropping 1,000 words all at once to avoid programs that can detect the progress of a creation. Add a few extra words. Make it not quite so perfectly mediocre. Human.

       This of course is happening in conjunction with a social media revolution that is producing a generation of young people who not only do not write their own papers, but do not read anything but commentary on their phones, much of which is A.I. or human creation badly in need of editing. And yes, current reading scores reflect a significant decline in the reading levels of students that started with the pandemic and has worsened with the growth of social media and A.I.

       It is not a promising development in human evolution.

      This also is happening at a time when those in positions of power to put some guardrails on A.I., for example, the Congress of the United States, are so in awe of or financially indebted to huge tech corporations for campaign contributions that any mere suggestion of limits on Artificial Intelligence is met with blank stares. Also, Republicans, who have control of Congress, have spent most of this year in recess to avoid dealing with other issues (Jeffrey Epstein) that are embarrassing to their leader, Donald Trump.

     This avoidance of the A.I. issue also helps Trump because the remaining base of his dwindling support consists of the poorly educated and those currying to them for votes or profit.

     On the positive side, perhaps the most prominent voice to speak out for some need to protect and encourage human intelligence, indeed humanity as a species, is not a minor one — Pope Leo XIV. 

     The pope wrote a 42,300-word encyclical on the need to place limits on A.I. In essence, he warned that AI must serve humanity rather than concentrate power or automate human dignity out of existence. Yes, I am willing to believe he didn’t have A.I. write his paper for him.

      The Chicago native read his encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence, at the Vatican in May. He was standing next to Christopher Olah, co-founder of Anthropic, one of the pioneer A.I.companies.

       Olah responded to the pope’s remarks with a request. He said, “We need more of the world — religious communities, civil society, scholars, governments, and indeed all people of good will — to do what His Holiness has done here: to take this seriously, to look closely, and to push events in a better direction.”

      Briefly, according to both men, that means addressing what to do about all the people who will lose their jobs because of AI, how to prevent governments from using A.I. to make military decisions of life and death and how to avoid looking at the tech companies who develop A.I. as too rich and too powerful to be held accountable to the law and basic morality.

    To keep them, as well as their creation, more human. 

                                ***

(With apologies to Sam Cooke for stealing the words to his big hit, “Wonderful World,” and thanks to Google AI for quickly finding the pope’s and Olah’s comments on the future of AI.)