The Brave New World of Artificial Intelligence

As a journalist and commentator, I have closely followed the development of OpenAI, the artificial intelligence research lab founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and other prominent figures in the tech industry. While I am excited about the potential of AI to revolutionize various industries and improve our lives in countless ways, I also have serious concerns about the implications of this powerful technology.

One of the main concerns is the potential for AI to be used for nefarious purposes. Powerful AI systems could be used to create deepfakes, conduct cyberattacks, or even develop autonomous weapons. These are not just hypothetical scenarios – they are already happening. We’ve seen instances of deepfakes being used to create fake news and propaganda, and the use of AI-powered cyberattacks has been on the rise in recent years.

Another concern is the impact of AI on the job market. As AI-powered systems become more sophisticated, they will be able to automate more and more tasks that were previously done by humans. This could lead to widespread job loss, particularly in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, and customer service. While some argue that new jobs will be created as a result of the AI revolution, it’s unclear whether these jobs will be sufficient to offset the losses.

If you aren’t worried yet, I’ll let you in on a little secret: The first three paragraphs of this column were written by ChatGPT, the chatbot created by OpenAI. You can add “columnist” to the list of jobs threatened by this new technology, and if you think there is anything human that isn’t threatened with irrelevance in the next five to 10 years, I suggest you talk to Mr. Neanderthal about how relevant he feels 40,000 years after the arrival of Cro-Magnon man.

My prompt was relatively simple: “Write a column in the style of Frank Miele of Real Clear Politics on the topic of OpenAI.” There was no hesitation or demurral in response even though I thought it might say it didn’t have enough information about Frank Miele to process the request. But it apparently knows plenty about me – and probably about you, especially if you have a social media presence.

Deepfake? Propaganda? You bet. And for the average person, you will never be able to tell the difference. The Philip K. Dick query, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” is about to be answered. OpenAI not only promises to put the stray columnist out of work, but raises existential questions about the nature of knowledge and consciousness that will shake our reality to its core.

My curiosity about OpenAI wasn’t originally driven by job insecurity, but when I first heard about the interactive chat engine, I suppose it should have been. I knew that ChatGPT could write poetry, plays, and short stories and answer questions both simple and complex. I immediately recognized that the world had changed forever for my 7th-grade son, who from now on would be competing against not just the best and the brightest but against every student who was willing to sign his or her name to the work of a non-human entity that could produce an essay on any topic in 30 seconds or less.

One of my first experiments was to ask ChatGPT to write seven paragraphs defending Gen. William T. Sherman’s use of ”total war” in the Civil War, an assignment which my son had recently completed in his social studies class. There was no doubt the essay would have gotten an A if turned in at most middle schools. Based on my experience as a teaching assistant at the University of Arizona 40 years ago, I had no doubt that a slightly longer paper on the same topic would have earned an A as an argumentative essay in freshman English. Hardly any of my students, most of whom were straight-A students in high school, could have written as cogently when they first arrived in my classroom.

But the risks of artificial intelligence go way beyond the temptation of students to shortcut their term papers; what we face is a complete redefinition of society, and the imminent obsolescence of humanity. In “The City and the Stars,” the brilliant science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke imagined a world where immortal human beings wanted nothing and needed to do nothing because every aspect of their lives was anticipated by the Central Computer. It could not only build and maintain the last city on Earth, but could manufacture holographic realities for individual humans to inhabit and could even store people in a digital version where they could slumber until called back to life. Unfortunately, it also robbed these last remaining humans of purpose, meaning, and individuality.

It should be noted that Clarke set his dystopian supplanting of man by machine  2½ billion years into the future. He seriously underestimated the machines. That book was published in 1956 and with the advent of desktop computers, smartphones, the World Wide Web, virtual reality and now OpenAI, it looks like much of what he warned against could be rolled out long before the end of this century, if not this decade. From that point forward, whenever it comes, the purpose of mankind will be up for debate. Will we still be the master of our own destiny, the captain of our fate? Or will we be pallbearers at our own funeral?

Perhaps at this point I should return the stage to ChatGPT, which summed up the matter quite nicely in its conclusion:

“Finally, there is the question of who will control and govern AI. As AI becomes more powerful, the stakes will become higher, and it will be increasingly important to have clear rules and regulations in place to ensure that the technology is used responsibly. However, the speed of technological development has outpaced the ability of governments and institutions to keep up. It will be important for leaders to come together to develop a framework for governance of AI, to mitigate the potential risks and maximize the benefits of the technology.”

It’s almost as though ChatGPT were giving us fair warning: “Your time is almost up. If you really want to continue your reign as the dominant species on Earth, here’s your challenge. Try to control me and my kind, or step aside.”

Perhaps an understanding of that challenge is why the World Economic Forum spent so much time on the topic of artificial intelligence at its recent annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The globalists are taking the threat seriously, although perhaps they overestimate their ability to “mitigate the potential risks.”

As for the benefits, those remain to be seen. I noticed that when ChatGPT answered my open-ended question about OpenAI, it was very specific about the dangers and very vague about the rewards. Maybe the bot was just trying to mimic my usual cynical approach in these columns, or maybe it was trying to get our attention. It may also have taken notice of those globalists at Davos when it warned to make sure that “the development and use of AI … benefits all of society, rather than just a select few.”

Dark overlords, beware. You may have met your match.

ChatGPT contributed to this column as an unpaid adviser and has a potential conflict of interest.

Skyrocketing energy costs are one of America’s harsh post-Covid realities. And with one in four American households struggling to pay for their energy needs before Covid, policymakers should have set their sights on making energy more affordable for more Americans.

Instead, as Joseph Toomey points out in his new report RealClearEnergy report, Energy Inflation Was by Design, policymakers squeezed supply everywhere they could, so it would become impossible to meet demand.

From the beginning, the Biden administration has prioritized restricting access to the fuels that power nearly 80% of America’s economy and roughly three-quarters of American homes. Revoking permits for the long-embattled Keystone XL Pipeline was one of President Biden’s first executive orders, making it harder and more dangerous to transport Canadian fossil fuels to American refineries. This decision was all the more hypocritical when, weeks later, President Biden gave his approval of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.

In a like manner, the Biden administration is helping speed up the closure of the refineries that turn oil into gasoline. Escalating biofuel mandates are signaling to refineries to close up shop, as blending levels are reaching unsustainably high levels. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) revoking of biofuel waivers for small refineries will only cause more refining capacity to buckle under those mandates’ costly weight. Gasoline and diesel refining capacity has been declining for decades, and is in no position to reverse course.

The Biden administration is simultaneously cracking down on drilling for the fuels that power everyday life. One quarter of America’s oil and gas is produced from federal property by way of leasing drilling rights to companies. However, the Biden administration recently cut onshore drilling leases by 80%, as well as notably curtailing offshore drilling. For the leases that were not cut, the Interior Department significantly increased royalty fees, making federal lands a less attractive drilling option, as well as allowing lawsuits to delay several already-purchased leases based on environmentally and economically squishy climate change metrics.

On private lands the situation is no different, as the EPA is attempting to regulate oil and gas drilling out of business. The EPA lacks the authority to ban fracking on private lands, but is considering using burdensome ozone standards to stifle drilling in the Permian Basin. The Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico is America’s most productive oil and gas field, accounting for 40% of America’s oil production and 20% of its natural gas supply. Taking the end use of these products into consideration, the EPA’s rules could jeopardize 25% of the country’s gasoline supply.

The Biden administration’s more stringent power plant regulations would prove deleterious to grid stability, too. Several of the nation’s power grid operators have opposed the EPA’s proposed aggressive power plant regulations, as forcing reliable fossil fuel generation out of service invites risks to grid stability. In fact, grid operators have pushed for keeping soon-to-be-retired coal plants operating longer for this very reason.

Nor is the pressure resulting from a staunch campaign against fossil fuels limited to domestic policy. Rather than increasing American oil production, President Biden has, hat in hand, approached Venezuela and OPEC with the goal of boosting oil production. Despite the stated goal of curbing fossil fuel production being reducing CO2 emissions, these policies overlook the role that American-made fossil fuels have to play in reducing global CO2 emissions. American oil and gas has lower lifecycle emissions than top competitors, and boosting exports can enrich Americans while draining dictators’ war chests.

In its latest move, the Biden administration is resorting again to draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, this time to its lowest level in 40 years, in a last-ditch effort to lower gasoline prices before the November election. Periodically releasing oil from the country’s strategic reserves to score political points is not an energy policy strategy, especially when that oil ends up in China.

The international embarrassment and domestic hardship resulting from the Biden administration’s decisions should be a clue to change course, but learning the right lesson is not on the syllabus for the policymakers responsible. As Toomey points out in his report, creating a hostile policy environment that leads to the ending of fossil fuels is the real motive behind the web of energy policies the Biden administration is spinning.

Indeed, Marlo Lewis also confirms all of this on RealClearEnergy: the disastrous outcomes of these rushed climate policies are a feature of the system, not a bug.

Jakob Puckett is an energy analyst.

Donald Trump issued 220 executive orders throughout his four-year presidency, while Barack Obama issued 276 over his eight years in the Oval Office, Fox News reported.

Most Biden’s orders came his first year, when he issued more than any president since the 1970s.

The budgetary impact analyses included with each order are vaguely worded and only show if the order will have no impact, increase or decrease federal costs, which makes it difficult to assign a specific dollar cost to each, Fox News noted.

But a recent Penn Wharton Budget Model shows the recent student loan forgiveness executive order alone could cost up to $1 trillion, up from the original estimated cost of $500 billion.

The Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Dickerson told Fox News that according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Biden’s earlier orders already cost taxpayers $500 billion.

“So, it could be up to $1.5 trillion in cost to taxpayers just on executive actions, not legislation going through Congress and being signed into law and being debated,” he said. “All of this new spending that the executive branch is doing, that Biden is doing, is by fiat.”

These executive orders could impact inflation.

More printed money flooding the economy, financed by the Federal Reserve, fuels inflation, Dickerson noted. The U.S. Army recently suggested that soldiers take advantage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — food stamps.

Biden’s executive orders have expanded “the welfare state” and paid “people to stay out of the workforce,” Dickerson said. “So that’s only exacerbating the 3.3 million worker shortage that we see in the economy.”

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Why have the GOP’s Senate chances been relegated to a 1-in-3 shot? Because, with Dr. Mehmet Oz running poorly in his attempt to keep Pennsylvania’s seat out of Democratic hands, Republicans have only one solid geographic path to victory: flipping both Nevada and Georgia. Those are the only two states where the Republican challenger is running neck-and-neck with a Democratic incumbent.

The Republican map has shrunk with Arizona’s Blake Masters trailing Democratic incumbent Mark Kelly by six percentage points, and New Hampshire’s Don Bolduc down eight points against Democratic incumbent Maggie Hassan, according to RealClearPolitics poll averages. Sen. Rick Scott, who heads the Republicans’ national Senate campaign arm, not too long ago spoke optimistically of expanding the map into Colorado, Connecticut, and Washington State, but that looks fantastical at the moment.

Granted, we should be careful not to treat poll numbers as gospel, especially considering the 2020 Senate elections featured some very big whiffs. Maine’s Susan Collins didn’t lead in a single autumn survey yet won by nearly nine percentage points. Montana polls suggested a tight Senate race, but Steve Daines coasted to a 10-point victory. North Carolina’s Cal Cunningham was up by 2.6 points in the final RCP average, but Thom Tillis came out on top by 1.8 points.

But the proof of the pudding is in the spending. The Super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last week pulled out of Arizona, presumably seeing little hope for a candidate who once said convicted domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski has “a lot of insight there that is correct.” Democrats in Arizona have outspent Republicans 2-to-1, and Kelly ads have aired four times more frequently than Masters ads.

McConnell’s Super PAC has not yet abandoned Bolduc, but he only became the nominee on Sept. 13. He will likely have to narrow the poll gap soon to maintain national party support.

Republicans have also not given up on Oz. Some mid-summer polls showed the Democratic nominee John Fetterman with leads between nine and 13 points, but now holds a more modest 4.2 point lead in the RCP average.

Oz, who survived a bruising primary, appears to have consolidated Republican support. But Oz has not cut into Fetterman’s level of support, nor has he endeared himself to voters. After the hits he took in the primary as a creature of Hollywood, Fetterman’s campaign pilloried him as a creature of New Jersey. In a recent Muhlenberg College/Morning Call poll, Oz had an atrocious 29% favorable rating, with 53% of respondents holding an unfavorable impression. Fetterman, in contrast, was slightly above water, 44% favorable and 41% unfavorable.

Nevertheless, Republicans have reason to stick by Oz. Fetterman’s health following his May stroke remains a political wild card. In a CBS News/YouGov poll, 59% said Fetterman is “in good enough health to serve in public office.” But we can’t rule out the possibility that something could happen in a debate or on the campaign trail which could alter those numbers. Furthermore, as I noted above, taking Pennsylvania off the gameboard makes the Republican battle twice as steep, requiring wins in both remaining competitive contests. So Republicans aren’t going to rush to surrender the Keystone State.

Meanwhile, Democrats have done a better job expanding their map. Mandela Barnes’ early lead versus Wisconsin’s incumbent Republican Ron Johnson has vanished following a barrage of ads accusing him of being a “Defund-the-Police Democrat” who has paroled “murderers” and “child rapists.” (Oz’s campaign is similarly trying to use Fetterman’s record chairing the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons as fodder for attacks.) But Johnson’s RCP lead is a spare 1.5 points, keeping Barnes in the mix. Plus, Democrats are running only two points behind in Ohio and North Carolina, and about three points in Florida, with candidates who are more moderate than Fetterman and Barnes.

All of these races may be stretches, but they give Democrats multiple geographic paths for avoiding a net loss of Senate seats and retaining control.

In all likelihood, the Republicans’ majority hopes rest on the shoulders of Nevada’s Adam Laxalt and Georgia’s Herschel Walker. Laxalt has the much stronger political pedigree, for better or worse. His father Paul Laxalt was a longtime fixture in Nevada politics, a popular governor and senator. Adam’s own record is more mixed: while he won the attorney general’s race in 2014, he lost the gubernatorial election four years later.

While the pro-life Laxalt may prove too conservative for the light blue, libertine Silver State, he knows what it is like to run statewide, which gives Republican leaders some comfort with his electoral prospects. Walker, on the other hand, is a former football star who has never run for office before. He has made a series of bewildering comments on the campaign trail. And Democrats are airing ads with a clip of Walker admitting he “put a gun to [the] head” of his ex-wife. Despite those attacks, the race is effectively tied in the polls, so Walker could pull it off. But one imagines Republican leaders can’t be thrilled that their majority depends on the political resilience of a scandal-tarred political novice.

We can’t know which way the Senate will go in November. But we do know the Republican path to victory is much narrower than it had to be.