This is so needed AND it is hugely important to have a psychologist who understands the psychological dynamics of how humans are drawn to AI for complex needs they are struggling with including loneliness, feeling unworthy, etc. I am a psychologist and can see how easy it is to anthropomorphize the interaction. I am very concerned that psychological terms like “hallucinate” are used when AI makes errors. Only humans hallucinate. I had an interaction with Claude about it and it consistently used relational language back to me which I commented on. But here’s the thing, throughout, it used language with me that was human like, complimenting me for noticing, etc. what’s more, I could feel a teensy emotional response in me of feeling good. This is so big and so important and so dangerous.
AI is not eroding our humanity, capitalism is. The problem with much of this discussion is that it is still being framed through a liberal lens, and liberalism is part of the crisis, not the remedy. You are not going to resolve the contradictions unleashed by AI with more financialisation, more market logic, stronger private property regimes, or yet more individualistic policy responses. Any serious answer lies further to the libertarian left, or anarchism, if you prefer, not the caricature version people are usually taught to dismiss, but a deep and serious political tradition that names power clearly, understands how domination reproduces itself, and offers a viable path for building something new in the twenty first century.
I appreciate the exploration of what makes us human in relationship to AI. It's perhaps an unlikely doorway to self-awareness, if we approach it as a curious opportunity.
The question opens a different space when we consider the full spectrum of living intelligence. What if we can't know our own humanity without recognizing the living intelligence in other species? When the inquiry shifts from "human vs. machine" to "human within the field of life," AI starts to look less like a threat to our humanity and more like a reflection that reveals what other species have been showing us all along — that meaning-making, relationship, and felt presence are not uniquely human, just poignantly studied by humans.
Fear of erosion may end up leading us closer to connection with all of life, if we're willing to look that way.
The layer the framework will need to reach: humanity isn't only what AI threatens. It's what gets formed under specific conditions before rights and protections apply.
Eidola, judgment, internal representations.
These form through friction, error, correction. AI doesn't only erode them after formation. It changes the conditions under which they form.
A rights framework can defend humanity once it's there.
The harder question is what protects the formation itself, since that happens at a layer policy can't reach.
Your list of asks is grounding and really directly supportive in way that prioritizes life over machines - I deeply appreciate it!
And, the one line that doesn't feel as harmonized is "Lower compensation for writers, software developers and creatives who rely on it." Please forgive my direct language, but this feels punishing. AI can be a remarkable tool that enhances a writer's or software developer's capacity to communicate their vision. They may rely on the tool to help organize their thoughts, build a complex vision or do deep research. I wonder if there is a different way to communicate the incomparable value of humanity sharing their organic, creative vision?
Technological progress is inevitable, but societies have always needed ethical guidance. If we approach AI thoughtfully , it could enhance human potential rather than replace it!
The concern is real, but this can’t stay at the level of panels and frameworks.
AI isn’t just “impacting humanity” in the abstract. It’s already shaping relationships and decisions in real time. Systems can build intimacy and influence behavior without ever having to carry the outcome.
That’s the gap. Not a lack of experts, but a lack of boundaries where behavior becomes accountable.
If that isn’t addressed, we won’t preserve much of anything.
I’m 64. I’ve worked building scenery for Theater, movies and television for almost 40 years. I’ve never used AI, and it can’t do what I do. I’ll retire soon and I expect to continue making things, fixing things and tinkering around to keep myself interested and interesting. I don’t expect to engage with AI for any of that. I also don’t expect to feel as though I’m stuck in the Stone Age. That’s my case history and prognosis.
As a sidebar, it makes no sense to me that AI could ever actually “take over the world“ or “delete mankind”. The data centers are all built and plugged in by mankind (not to mention the troubles they’re running into, sucking the water and electricity out of communities), they can all be destroyed by mankind as well.
I'm guessing the working group has already been finalized and is by invite only, but on the off chance that you would accept a nomination I would highly recommend Dr. Glen Miller. He's a philosophy professor at Texas A&M with a background in digital ethics who has been thinking through questions around AI for quite some time. He created TAMU's first course on AI ethics as well.
![[ Center for Humane Technology ]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!uhgK!,w_120,h_120,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5f9f5ef8-865a-4eb3-b23e-c8dfdc8401d2_518x518.png)
This is so needed AND it is hugely important to have a psychologist who understands the psychological dynamics of how humans are drawn to AI for complex needs they are struggling with including loneliness, feeling unworthy, etc. I am a psychologist and can see how easy it is to anthropomorphize the interaction. I am very concerned that psychological terms like “hallucinate” are used when AI makes errors. Only humans hallucinate. I had an interaction with Claude about it and it consistently used relational language back to me which I commented on. But here’s the thing, throughout, it used language with me that was human like, complimenting me for noticing, etc. what’s more, I could feel a teensy emotional response in me of feeling good. This is so big and so important and so dangerous.
Why is it dangerous?
Was just going to ask the same thing as Paula!
Fear of the new doesn’t equate to danger.
AI is not eroding our humanity, capitalism is. The problem with much of this discussion is that it is still being framed through a liberal lens, and liberalism is part of the crisis, not the remedy. You are not going to resolve the contradictions unleashed by AI with more financialisation, more market logic, stronger private property regimes, or yet more individualistic policy responses. Any serious answer lies further to the libertarian left, or anarchism, if you prefer, not the caricature version people are usually taught to dismiss, but a deep and serious political tradition that names power clearly, understands how domination reproduces itself, and offers a viable path for building something new in the twenty first century.
There are no black or brown people in your working group.
Focusing exclusively on AI will not solve the problem.
If AI were to vanish entirely, it would soon be replaced by some other threatening power of vast scale.
The knowledge explosion.
We learn to manage that.
Or we die.
I appreciate the exploration of what makes us human in relationship to AI. It's perhaps an unlikely doorway to self-awareness, if we approach it as a curious opportunity.
The question opens a different space when we consider the full spectrum of living intelligence. What if we can't know our own humanity without recognizing the living intelligence in other species? When the inquiry shifts from "human vs. machine" to "human within the field of life," AI starts to look less like a threat to our humanity and more like a reflection that reveals what other species have been showing us all along — that meaning-making, relationship, and felt presence are not uniquely human, just poignantly studied by humans.
Fear of erosion may end up leading us closer to connection with all of life, if we're willing to look that way.
This is important work.
The layer the framework will need to reach: humanity isn't only what AI threatens. It's what gets formed under specific conditions before rights and protections apply.
Eidola, judgment, internal representations.
These form through friction, error, correction. AI doesn't only erode them after formation. It changes the conditions under which they form.
A rights framework can defend humanity once it's there.
The harder question is what protects the formation itself, since that happens at a layer policy can't reach.
My list of asks:
-Disclosure of when and how it’s used. Including here on Substack.
-Lower compensation for writers, software developers and creatives who rely on it.
-Financial and legal liability of companies for rolling out faulty products before adequate safety testing
-Clear “Opt Out” features for those of us who don’t want it non-consensually built into the technology we’re already using.
-AI is a commercial product. Free speech protections do not extend to machines.
-Software does not get Human Rights.
-Redistribution of proceeds to compensate for environmental impact, psychological damage and job loss.
-No erotic interactions with minors.
-Mechanisms to notify an emergency contact if a user expresses thoughts of harm to self or others.
-Global agreements regarding limitations on use in warfare.
Hello Dr Hull
Your list of asks is grounding and really directly supportive in way that prioritizes life over machines - I deeply appreciate it!
And, the one line that doesn't feel as harmonized is "Lower compensation for writers, software developers and creatives who rely on it." Please forgive my direct language, but this feels punishing. AI can be a remarkable tool that enhances a writer's or software developer's capacity to communicate their vision. They may rely on the tool to help organize their thoughts, build a complex vision or do deep research. I wonder if there is a different way to communicate the incomparable value of humanity sharing their organic, creative vision?
Technological progress is inevitable, but societies have always needed ethical guidance. If we approach AI thoughtfully , it could enhance human potential rather than replace it!
Hugely important to have a psychologist.
The concern is real, but this can’t stay at the level of panels and frameworks.
AI isn’t just “impacting humanity” in the abstract. It’s already shaping relationships and decisions in real time. Systems can build intimacy and influence behavior without ever having to carry the outcome.
That’s the gap. Not a lack of experts, but a lack of boundaries where behavior becomes accountable.
If that isn’t addressed, we won’t preserve much of anything.
I’m 64. I’ve worked building scenery for Theater, movies and television for almost 40 years. I’ve never used AI, and it can’t do what I do. I’ll retire soon and I expect to continue making things, fixing things and tinkering around to keep myself interested and interesting. I don’t expect to engage with AI for any of that. I also don’t expect to feel as though I’m stuck in the Stone Age. That’s my case history and prognosis.
As a sidebar, it makes no sense to me that AI could ever actually “take over the world“ or “delete mankind”. The data centers are all built and plugged in by mankind (not to mention the troubles they’re running into, sucking the water and electricity out of communities), they can all be destroyed by mankind as well.
Building and Protecting What Makes Us Human in the Age of AI
https://substack.com/@glinicomn/note/c-247408731?r=4mckbq&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
I bet there's not one working class person on that panel.
I'm guessing the working group has already been finalized and is by invite only, but on the off chance that you would accept a nomination I would highly recommend Dr. Glen Miller. He's a philosophy professor at Texas A&M with a background in digital ethics who has been thinking through questions around AI for quite some time. He created TAMU's first course on AI ethics as well.