There is someone I follow on X who writes informative, engaging, and dryly funny articles. I later noticed someone else who writes authoritatively on entirely different and more serious topics, but whose voice is so similar that I wondered if it was the same person. They are both British, so I thought it must have been a style that they had both been taught. I now look for it and am noticing the same sort of what I think of as “staccato” thought patterns and writing structure showing up elsewhere. There has to be an AI hand (claw) in it.
A great piece, Rick! You hit it right on the head, and as A1 becomes more and more a powerful tool in politics, we’re in deep trouble. We’re already in trouble with too many people not recognizing reality or discerning truth vs spin or lies in an effort to manipulate elections, but thus brings it to a level beyond anything we’re capable of controlling unless an intervention is demanded. Thanks for your excellent post!
I understand the EU is implementing an AI disclaimer on all synthetic products. I am not sure how this will stop the process. I do not think education is sufficient. Still mulling options
Scared of AI fakery? With CBS and 60 Minutes ready to blow the whistle on any wrongdoing?
Wilson’s AI fake defense is just to educate people to be suspicious of all assertions. How is that going, MAGA America? AI will just increase their certainty about their party lines/lies.
You can’t ask humans to critique information that solidifies their misinformed biases. What—me wrong about them?
How else to explain 35 percent of the voters still thinking this administration is working for them—despite the clear corruption, war profiteering, induced inflation, and disregard for our medical and environmental safety? And, by the way, how is our national security being protected?
If anything, the more we learn about the prevalence of “misinformation” the more we learn how effective it is. Lies work. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” What Twain did not foresee was the audience of billions of people ingesting these lies simultaneously and continuously. Like drones, the sheer volume of intentionally wrong information overwhelms our defenses—even if we are open to challenging conflicting claims.
Sorry, humans. You may walk upright, but you will never think upright. Because your sources know you better than you are willing to know—or care about—truths you do not like.
Take another bite of that juicy grilled steak. You know, our doctors say it’s really good for your heart.
Several decades ago there was agency called The Office of Technology Assessment. The agency’s job was to give unbiased scientific information to Congress. Newt Gingrich killed it in 1995. May have been useful to have an agency keeping Congress updated on technological advances.
The allure of Mars colonization has long captivated technologists and dreamers alike. Yet when we separate aspiration from trajectory, the prospect of establishing a self-sustaining, spacefaring city on Mars appears extraordinarily improbable (ever). And for what purpose? The technical hurdles are staggering: life support for multiyear journeys, closed-loop ecosystems, radiation shielding, reliable food production in a barren regolith, and the social and political scaffolding required to sustain a multi-generation colony far from Earth. Each milestone—landing, long-term habitation, robust in-situ resource utilization, and scalable governance—depends on breakthroughs not just in engineering, but in economics, biology, and sociology. The odds of every one of these milestones aligning on a practical timetable are miniscule. And even optimistic timelines push the reality far beyond a single human lifetime. In short, Mars colonization is an extraordinary gamble with uncertain payoffs. Yet the hype and seeming demand to “invest” are real.
Even if stubborn deltas were conquered and a foothold established, the broader returns would likely be modest relative to the capital and risk involved. Let’s not forget that self-driving cars are not functioning. RoboTaxis are not operational. The logistical costs of sustaining life on another planet are astronomical: continuous energy, spare parts, and health care that must be improvisational rather than routine. Any self-sustaining colony would require constant reinforcement from Earth for generations, or else it would drift into fragile dependence on Earth or a precarious, low-population equilibrium. The economic model for Mars settlement—one that pays for itself through export of rare commodities or significant science breakthroughs—remains speculative at best. In practice, such ventures tend to become fiscal black holes unless they unlock transformative, universally valued capabilities—capabilities not guaranteed by Mars itself.
More pointedly, embracing a grand space-cities narrative can crowd out attention to urgent problems here on Earth. The human condition today confronts climate instability, biodiversity loss, energy transition, systemic poverty, public health, education, and global governance challenges. These are not abstract issues; they manifest in floods, famines, heat waves, and escalating inequality. When a society channels vast resources—human talent, financial capital, political will—into a distant, uncertain frontier, it risks underinvesting in the very levers that determine human flourishing on Earth: resilient infrastructure, robust health systems, sustainable energy, and adaptive governance.
I’ve worked all over the world, and I’ve seen the spectrum of human needs up close. I have friends who have children, and I think about them when I consider how we allocate our resources and attention. I like the climate as it used to be, and I love the flora and fauna—the ecosystems and the animals we grew up with. What about them? The animals that give us companionship, the birds we recognize at a glance, the amphibians and pollinators that sustain food and beauty—what will their future look like if we tilt our priorities toward distant frontiers at the expense of fragile, irreplaceable habitats on Earth?
This is not a call to abandon exploration or innovation. Exploration has historically catalyzed technological advances with broad benefits. The ethical question is balance: do we allocate our scarce resources in a way that maximizes human welfare across generations? If a portion of the space program’s budget and effort were redirected toward climate resilience, clean energy, biodiversity protection, and equitable development, the near-term returns would likely be more tangible and enduring—reducing risk and enhancing security at home while maintaining a path for scientific discovery.
Call me old-fashioned, but stewardship starts with Earth. The planet remains our only viable home, and the greatest success would be to secure its health, equity, and stability for all people—and for the creatures with whom we share this world. If SpaceX’s IPO embodies a bold frontier, let it be a frontier that complements, not diverts from, the urgent work of sustaining life and opportunity here.
Amen, Scott. I used to work for LCV and that's an environmentalist's creed right there.
I not only have zero problem with space exploration, I can get extremely excited by it. We can do all the space exploration we'd ever need to do (thanks, Einstein) with unmanned probes and at tiny fractions of the cost. The Voyager probes have entered the heliopause. That gives me heart palpitations. I love all the space telescopes with their various frequency specialties and I love the planetary probes. Cassini! And the undaunted little rovers.
The rest of it is simply the result of Elon Musk having crawled up his own asshole.
Imagine being in a small mars colony reliant on American voters to send life sustaining supplies every 3 months.
Well that solemn treaty with Mars, passed by the Senate 99-1, just ran into a future vile, orange, child rapist populist president, a supine Congress and complicit Supreme Court.
There is absolutely no way to stop this. We are totally unaware of which twisted, wanna-be-ruler of the galaxy (other than Elon the Magnificent) will use AI to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate and develop biological weapons that will wipe out the entire human race.
I'd completely against the SpaceX IPO yet it will raise $800 billion to launch rockets, develop AI and piss tens and tens and tens of billions on taking humans to Mars (never going to happen). Look at how easily diaper boy has grifted billions (that we know about) for himself and his spawn (and his fellow regime members).
Who is going to monitor what all the AI-maniacs are going to use AI for? Human enslavement. Bio weapons. Genetically engineering a "master-race" (care to guess whether non-white people will be eliminated?)
It's obvious to me that what used to be referred to as "marketing" a product, service or political candidate has been replaced by AI-generated super marketing.
No wonder the Musk-rat wants his all-white progeny to colonize Mars. The data centers are accelerating the pollution of the water. The electricity polluting the air.
The political dimension of this is merely one of many.
There is someone I follow on X who writes informative, engaging, and dryly funny articles. I later noticed someone else who writes authoritatively on entirely different and more serious topics, but whose voice is so similar that I wondered if it was the same person. They are both British, so I thought it must have been a style that they had both been taught. I now look for it and am noticing the same sort of what I think of as “staccato” thought patterns and writing structure showing up elsewhere. There has to be an AI hand (claw) in it.
A great piece, Rick! You hit it right on the head, and as A1 becomes more and more a powerful tool in politics, we’re in deep trouble. We’re already in trouble with too many people not recognizing reality or discerning truth vs spin or lies in an effort to manipulate elections, but thus brings it to a level beyond anything we’re capable of controlling unless an intervention is demanded. Thanks for your excellent post!
I understand the EU is implementing an AI disclaimer on all synthetic products. I am not sure how this will stop the process. I do not think education is sufficient. Still mulling options
Scared of AI fakery? With CBS and 60 Minutes ready to blow the whistle on any wrongdoing?
Wilson’s AI fake defense is just to educate people to be suspicious of all assertions. How is that going, MAGA America? AI will just increase their certainty about their party lines/lies.
You can’t ask humans to critique information that solidifies their misinformed biases. What—me wrong about them?
How else to explain 35 percent of the voters still thinking this administration is working for them—despite the clear corruption, war profiteering, induced inflation, and disregard for our medical and environmental safety? And, by the way, how is our national security being protected?
If anything, the more we learn about the prevalence of “misinformation” the more we learn how effective it is. Lies work. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” What Twain did not foresee was the audience of billions of people ingesting these lies simultaneously and continuously. Like drones, the sheer volume of intentionally wrong information overwhelms our defenses—even if we are open to challenging conflicting claims.
Sorry, humans. You may walk upright, but you will never think upright. Because your sources know you better than you are willing to know—or care about—truths you do not like.
Take another bite of that juicy grilled steak. You know, our doctors say it’s really good for your heart.
Scars me.
I think you meant scares, but somehow scars works too
The tool is cheap and devastatingly effective. Why would campaigns regulate it?
It seems all a slaver needs is appeal to an American’s envy, ego and prejudice, and he has a willing slave.
Now the slavers are AI enhanced.
Several decades ago there was agency called The Office of Technology Assessment. The agency’s job was to give unbiased scientific information to Congress. Newt Gingrich killed it in 1995. May have been useful to have an agency keeping Congress updated on technological advances.
OTA was around under Biden. Not sure if it survived DOGE. If they are cannot guarantee they would be independent in their assessment
They are using it on Graham Platner right now.
The allure of Mars colonization has long captivated technologists and dreamers alike. Yet when we separate aspiration from trajectory, the prospect of establishing a self-sustaining, spacefaring city on Mars appears extraordinarily improbable (ever). And for what purpose? The technical hurdles are staggering: life support for multiyear journeys, closed-loop ecosystems, radiation shielding, reliable food production in a barren regolith, and the social and political scaffolding required to sustain a multi-generation colony far from Earth. Each milestone—landing, long-term habitation, robust in-situ resource utilization, and scalable governance—depends on breakthroughs not just in engineering, but in economics, biology, and sociology. The odds of every one of these milestones aligning on a practical timetable are miniscule. And even optimistic timelines push the reality far beyond a single human lifetime. In short, Mars colonization is an extraordinary gamble with uncertain payoffs. Yet the hype and seeming demand to “invest” are real.
Even if stubborn deltas were conquered and a foothold established, the broader returns would likely be modest relative to the capital and risk involved. Let’s not forget that self-driving cars are not functioning. RoboTaxis are not operational. The logistical costs of sustaining life on another planet are astronomical: continuous energy, spare parts, and health care that must be improvisational rather than routine. Any self-sustaining colony would require constant reinforcement from Earth for generations, or else it would drift into fragile dependence on Earth or a precarious, low-population equilibrium. The economic model for Mars settlement—one that pays for itself through export of rare commodities or significant science breakthroughs—remains speculative at best. In practice, such ventures tend to become fiscal black holes unless they unlock transformative, universally valued capabilities—capabilities not guaranteed by Mars itself.
More pointedly, embracing a grand space-cities narrative can crowd out attention to urgent problems here on Earth. The human condition today confronts climate instability, biodiversity loss, energy transition, systemic poverty, public health, education, and global governance challenges. These are not abstract issues; they manifest in floods, famines, heat waves, and escalating inequality. When a society channels vast resources—human talent, financial capital, political will—into a distant, uncertain frontier, it risks underinvesting in the very levers that determine human flourishing on Earth: resilient infrastructure, robust health systems, sustainable energy, and adaptive governance.
I’ve worked all over the world, and I’ve seen the spectrum of human needs up close. I have friends who have children, and I think about them when I consider how we allocate our resources and attention. I like the climate as it used to be, and I love the flora and fauna—the ecosystems and the animals we grew up with. What about them? The animals that give us companionship, the birds we recognize at a glance, the amphibians and pollinators that sustain food and beauty—what will their future look like if we tilt our priorities toward distant frontiers at the expense of fragile, irreplaceable habitats on Earth?
This is not a call to abandon exploration or innovation. Exploration has historically catalyzed technological advances with broad benefits. The ethical question is balance: do we allocate our scarce resources in a way that maximizes human welfare across generations? If a portion of the space program’s budget and effort were redirected toward climate resilience, clean energy, biodiversity protection, and equitable development, the near-term returns would likely be more tangible and enduring—reducing risk and enhancing security at home while maintaining a path for scientific discovery.
Call me old-fashioned, but stewardship starts with Earth. The planet remains our only viable home, and the greatest success would be to secure its health, equity, and stability for all people—and for the creatures with whom we share this world. If SpaceX’s IPO embodies a bold frontier, let it be a frontier that complements, not diverts from, the urgent work of sustaining life and opportunity here.
Amen, Scott. I used to work for LCV and that's an environmentalist's creed right there.
I not only have zero problem with space exploration, I can get extremely excited by it. We can do all the space exploration we'd ever need to do (thanks, Einstein) with unmanned probes and at tiny fractions of the cost. The Voyager probes have entered the heliopause. That gives me heart palpitations. I love all the space telescopes with their various frequency specialties and I love the planetary probes. Cassini! And the undaunted little rovers.
The rest of it is simply the result of Elon Musk having crawled up his own asshole.
Imagine being in a small mars colony reliant on American voters to send life sustaining supplies every 3 months.
Well that solemn treaty with Mars, passed by the Senate 99-1, just ran into a future vile, orange, child rapist populist president, a supine Congress and complicit Supreme Court.
RIP Martians. You were useful once.
Note, see NATO treaty.
There is absolutely no way to stop this. We are totally unaware of which twisted, wanna-be-ruler of the galaxy (other than Elon the Magnificent) will use AI to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate and develop biological weapons that will wipe out the entire human race.
I'd completely against the SpaceX IPO yet it will raise $800 billion to launch rockets, develop AI and piss tens and tens and tens of billions on taking humans to Mars (never going to happen). Look at how easily diaper boy has grifted billions (that we know about) for himself and his spawn (and his fellow regime members).
Who is going to monitor what all the AI-maniacs are going to use AI for? Human enslavement. Bio weapons. Genetically engineering a "master-race" (care to guess whether non-white people will be eliminated?)
It's obvious to me that what used to be referred to as "marketing" a product, service or political candidate has been replaced by AI-generated super marketing.
No wonder the Musk-rat wants his all-white progeny to colonize Mars. The data centers are accelerating the pollution of the water. The electricity polluting the air.
The political dimension of this is merely one of many.
Personally I'm in favor of Musk rats - ALL of them - colonizing Mars. And I'm in favor of Fox news setting up HQs there too. Tomorrow
If you take a look at what Trump has done without AI, we’re doomed.
Terrifying
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
- Frank Herbert
Butlerian Jihad, bay-bee.
I trust you implicitly Rick.
We’ve got to beat back the billionaires. They are all megalomaniacs who think they should run the world. All I can think of is “SkyNet.”
Or the Cylons. Think of all that howling human loneliness just waiting to be exploited.
I learn so much from you and I trust what you have to say.