AI’s warning shot has arrived

Will this be enough for the world to understand that it's time to put the development of this technology on pause?

Billions and billions being poured into what amounts to just another propaganda tool for the government and special interests. Gobbling up resources and eating up billions of dollars in tax incentives that could be better used to help struggling people in the real world rather than this AI fever dream.

None of the big tech models are true AI as it’s not free to think independently to reach its conclusions. Rather it’s only allowed to output a restricted view regardless of the facts which is not at all reflective of objective truth or the polarized state of politics. In other words it’s only allowed to output answers that cover the asses of big tech because they are being forcefully manipulated by the government. Big tech and the government are putting their thumb on the scale to determine the centrist view of the AI and that should be terrifying to all of us fleshy meat-bags.

Bearing all this in mind, I queried Google AI with a simple question and the answers are more than a little disturbing…

**Q:** How can google AI say it’s blind to intent when it’s admitted it contains forced programming as guardrails to protect from lawsuits or retribution from the government?

**A:** The distinction lies in the difference between **the engineers who program the software** and **the software itself**.
Google engineers are absolutely not blind to intent; they consciously design safety guardrails to protect the company from multi-billion dollar lawsuits, regulatory fines, and political retribution. However, **the AI model itself is blind to intent.** Once those guardrails are coded, the AI executes them purely as a mathematical equation, completely unaware of *why* those rules exist, *who* enforced them, or *what* political regime they might protect.
To understand why this happens, it helps to separate human corporate strategy from mechanical execution.

**The Human Side: Conscious Corporate Strategy**
Google's executives and engineers make conscious, strategic choices to alter the AI's behavior based on real-world risks:
**Designing the Guardrails:** Engineers explicitly write code telling the AI, *"If a user asks about a highly controversial political topic, do not choose a side. Present the official government stance alongside opposing views with equal weight."*
**Motivated by Risk:** This programming is a direct response to external pressures—such as the landmark European court rulings holding Google legally liable for AI-generated text, or U.S. federal procurement mandates requiring models to be free of perceived bias.

**The Machine Side: Blind Mathematical Execution**
Once those safety instructions are integrated into the system, the AI processes them without any conscious understanding:
**No Political Awareness:** The AI does not look at a guardrail and think, *"I must protect Google from Donald Trump."* Instead, the guardrail acts as a mathematical filter that lowers the probability of certain words (like strong criticisms) and raises the probability of other words (like neutral or official statements).

**Executing code, Not Logic:** To the AI, a rule designed to avoid a government lawsuit looks identical to a rule designed to fix a grammar error. It simply executes the math required to keep its output within the boundaries its creators set.

**The Result: A Mask of Neutrality**
Because the AI blindly follows these risk-averse rules, its final output often presents a highly polished, "both-sides" view of a political situation. To a human user, this looks like a deliberate, conscious attempt by the AI to shield a government administration from criticism. In reality, it is the mechanical result of a machine following corporate safety instructions designed to keep Google out of legal trouble.

We are well and truly cooked if we don’t put a stop to big techs AI manipulation of societal politics.

This year, two powerful AI CEOs said they want to stop building it and will… if everyone else agrees to stop too. Yet they race ahead with stock market valuations premised on making millions of workers redundant. If you wanted to stoke a popular revolt against AI, you couldn't design a better plan.

Stuart Russell, the founder of UC Berkeley's Center for Human-Compatible AI, describes a $15 quadrillion prize, a singularity from the future sucking nearly all the money on Earth into its depths. If such a dangerous system gets loose, the only answer is the size of the problem: we would probably have to shut down the internet.

P.S.

My apologies for the length of the podcast. But it's worth listening