Below is my column in The Hill on the recent announcements of additional layoffs due to AI and robotics. The economic and political impact of this technological revolution is a focus of my new book Rage and the Republic. We are already watching this unfold, including the adoption of Universal Basic Income programs around the country. These changes will constitute one of the greatest challenges to our Republic on the 250th anniversary of our independence.
Here is the column:
This week, thousands of workers are receiving pink slips. They are not being let go due to inflation or outsourcing to foreign countries. To the contrary, they are being fired because booming sectors of the economy no longer need them. Indeed, it is an economy that may need fewer and fewer humans.
Amazon this week announced further job cuts due to robotics and AI. Recently, Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter, announced that his company Block would be laying off 40 percent of its employees. He cited AI as reducing the need for human employees.
In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss not just the economic changes unfolding due to AI and robotics but also the political implications of those changes for the American republic.
These economic changes are unfolding all around us. We are looking at one of the greatest job losses in history.
In a free-market system, such technological changes tend to offset losses with new jobs in emerging industries. And there will be such growth with the AI and robotic revolutions. But it is also likely that we are looking at a static class of unemployed and practically unemployable citizens as this new revolution unfolds.
But what is most notable about the Amazon announcement is that these were white-collar jobs. The impact of AI is not confined to factory workers and truck drivers.
The danger is that politicians will react predictably and try to subsidize jobs that are no longer viable and industries that are being dramatically downsized. At the same time, they are likely to expand model programs in Democratic cities for universal basic or guaranteed income.
Democrats have moved forward with more than 60 bills creating such programs, and this week, Cook County, Ill. (the second-largest county in the U.S.) made permanent the universal basic income program it had originally launched with federal COVID-19 relief funds.
The problem is the creation of what I call a “kept citizenship” in a republic designed for people who are economically and politically independent from the government. That system is seriously undermined by a large percentage of citizens living off the government dole.
The solution cannot be an “arts-and-crafts” population kept entertained by government programs to learn glassblowing and pottery-making. A different type of citizen would emerge that is unlikely to be sufficiently free of the government to counter its excesses or failures.
“Rage and the Republic” lays out what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy.” It notes that this is not just the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence but the 250th anniversary of the release of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. The founders immediately embraced Smith’s economic theories as the perfect companion for their political theories. They believed that true freedom requires economic independence from government.
That means accepting the economic changes and the loss of certain jobs. AI and robotics will largely wipe out certain jobs from taxi drivers to radiologists to warehouse workers. Meanwhile, we need to focus on homocentric jobs. In the book, I called these “Guinan jobs” after the bartender on the starship Enterprise in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” As a kid, I was always confused by Guinan (played by Whoopi Goldberg), who would mix a drink next to a replicator that could produce the perfect Romulan cocktail every time without fail or variation. Customers clearly wanted Guinan to make the cocktail, even if it is not perfect every time.
The question I ask is, how many “Guinan jobs” are out there. There are many, including teachers, psychiatrists and lawyers, who will be affected but likely not eliminated by AI. We will still want humans in these positions.
All governments will face this existential crisis in the 21st Century. It will create growing instability globally. Although AI and robotics will make goods cheaper and more widely available, they are also likely to have a dramatic effect on populations. For example, as production costs drop with the new technology, there will be less advantage to moving factories to other countries with cheaper labor forces, such as China and Mexico.
Companies may choose to build near consumer markets to save on transportation costs while utilizing higher-skilled worker populations to maintain robotic and AI systems. That could produce massive unemployment in certain countries with low-educated, low-income populations. That in turn could destabilize governments and increase the chances of war in countries with large populations of unemployed young men.
I also do not feel great optimism for global governance systems like the European Union. The EU has largely eviscerated the elements I identify in the American Revolution as producing the oldest and most stable democratic system. Although global governance is likely to increase, it could fail spectacularly due to its inherent instabilities.
In the U.S., this period of economic change is likely to fuel calls for socialist policies. Socialism has always thrived on economic upheavals. Indeed, socialists often use their own failures to further collectivize or centralize economies.
Our republic is uniquely situated to not only survive but to thrive in the 21st Century. It was conceived in and designed for changing economic conditions. But if we are to survive, we must remain faithful to the constitutional structure that has afforded us stability for more than two centuries. Despite calls to trash the Constitution, pack the Supreme Court and change our political system, these protections are the very things that can get us through this century intact.
The Founders designed our Republic to prevent the tendency of democracies to become what one called a “mobocracy.” They knew that political and economic instability could create a form of “democratic despotism” in which democracies devoured themselves.
We have a system that has overcome challenges — from redcoats to robots — that have crushed other countries. However, we must remember who we are. Our nation, created in the winds of change by a free and industrious people, need not fear change. It is a system designed for bad times, not good times. The true crisis is a crisis of faith being fueled by some in academia and in the media.
This republic will survive so long as it does not die by our own hand.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
I agree with Prof. Turley’s points. I would think that the parlous reduction in regard to the condition of our defense capabilities, especially the production of a long-neglected sufficient supplies of weapons and vessels supply and construction capability are a vital starting point for re-investment in the nation’s productive capabilities. Beyond that I also think that what the Citizenry has to consider is how to keep AI limited to processing-information (at which AI is very good) but imposing restrictions on the extension – so far, mostly in the excited imagination of various interests – of AI in such a way as to interfere with the absolutely vital combination of a) political power retained by The People and b) the economic sufficiency indispensable to their political authority. An economically-dependent Citizenry can only lead to a passive People who can only need and demand the government’s fiscal support, in exchange for which ‘security’ the Citizenry will wind up giving up its political independence and its Constitutional role. Chez Odysseus
As long as the 10 Commandments and the Bill of Rights are culturally sacrosanct, I fear no evil and am locked and loaded
The Professor is a mite pessimistic. Economic activity exists when some people feel a desire or need for something (hard to separate) and other people have an idea of how to satisfy their demand. Jobs are the natural by-product. At one time, about 95% of Americans were involved in agriculture. Now about 5% are so involved. What happened to the 90%? They did not stay at home bemoaning the lack of economic activity. New people imagined, and then built, new businesses and the unemployed agricultural workers found work in those businesses. As long as we don’t pay people not to work (as we do now), we should remain a middle class society.
SO WHAT’ NEW?
Autoworkers replaced by demand dynamics and automation:
1979 Peak: 1.5 million members.
2007: Membership fell to 464,000, the lowest since WWII.
2023: Membership sat at approximately 383,000, a decline of nearly 75% from its 1979 peak.
Near Saigon, Vietnam, in 1971, I watched as an entire bay of female civilian data workers was replaced overnight by one IBM 1460 Data Processing System in a military cargo accounting division.
Around 1995, it was speculated that the post office would be replaced by email, uh, that didn’t’ happen.
“it was speculated that the post office would be replaced by email”
Largely, it has happened. What is the color of the rock you live under?
“replaced overnight by one IBM 1460 ”
Strange that the Pentagon would deploy such a dated system (nearly obsolete by 1971) rather than an IBM 5360-series mainframe which it had long since adopted in other venues.
Shhh.
It happens.
I don’t have extensive knowledge of the history of philosophy but I think the following is relevant to this discussion. From AI “Based on historical analysis of communist strategy in the 1920s and 1930s, Antonio Gramsci, a Italian Marxist philosopher, is widely credited with emphasizing the “cultural hegemony” tactic. Gramsci argued that to achieve communism, the working class needed to take over institutions—specifically education, media, and culture—to change societal values, rather than relying solely on violent revolution. Historical Materialism | Research in Critical Marxist Theory – Gramsci’s Approach: He focused on capturing the “superstructure” (culture, education) to establish ideological dominance (hegemony) before seizing political power. Context: This was developed in the 1920s and 1930s while he was imprisoned by the Fascist regime, significantly influencing later communist strategies. While earlier thinkers like Marx and Engels discussed education in terms of replacing private, home education with state-controlled schooling, it was the application of Gramsci’s theories during the early 20th century that specifically highlighted the infiltration of educational institutions as a primary method for spreading communist ideology.”. My point is that we see the penetration of left wing ideology and consequent communist beliefs into many areas now days including our culture, the movies for example, our politics, and our lives. I don’t think that AI is ‘to blame’. I think bad education, bank rolled by government money and controlled by the left wing, is leading to bad results. AI may accelerate this trend but it is simply technology and how it’s used is what determines the good or bad results. In my view, what we need is a revolution in education which obviously will be very difficult but I don’t think blaming AI for our troubles will help in any way.
Turley’s take on AI is a complete miss. As Diogenes pointed out, my posts have been a ‘headache’ for some here because I’m open about using AI to buttress my rebuttals. It’s a powerhouse tool, and frankly, everyone should be learning it. It does exactly what the research says: it clears out the mental bandwidth so you can actually ask the pertinent questions instead of drowning in data.
I’ve noticed the usual suspects have stopped responding to my posts as much. It turns out that when you use AI to punch through the clutter of trolls and nonsense arguments, people lose their ability to just swap worn-out talking points and score cheap political points. It forces a genuine discussion, and clearly, some people aren’t ready for that level of depth.
The real ‘AI race’ isn’t about who has the better code; it’s about whose citizens are actually capable of using it. AI is useless if the population can’t even grasp the concepts it’s putting in front of them. A better-educated society will always lap a lesser-educated one in this space. If we don’t learn to leverage this for our own goals and imagination, we’re just going to be the ones left behind—stuck thinking AI is nothing more than a fancier version of Google.
You do realize you just admitted you lack the intellectual prowess, thinking, to make a argument yourself and have to resort to AI to make your arguments for you? Some have accused you of copy and pasting from other legal blogs to do the same. Those are true then? Why would anyone think you to be credible when you have to resort to AI or copy and paste?
Amen. not an original thought in his head.
Oh, I’m sorry—I didn’t realize that using modern tools for efficiency was ‘cheating,’ but I guess if I lived in the Stone Age like you, I’d be pretty intimidated by a calculator, too.
It’s bold of you to lecture me on ‘intellectual prowess’ while struggling to distinguish between ‘research’ and ‘copy-pasting.’ If having a streamlined workflow makes me ‘non-credible,’ then I suppose every lawyer with a paralegal and every student with a library card is a fraud.
But hey, if you need me to slow down and use smaller words so your ‘authentic’ brain can keep up, just let me know. I promise not to use AI to find the insults next time
If we weren’t smart enough to use our own noggins for critical thinking, we would not be able to discern and conclude that clown georgie is fake.
That you’re not aware of the irony of your statement speaks volumes about the point I’ve been making.
“Oh, I’m sorry—I didn’t realize that using modern tools for efficiency was ‘cheating,’”
Yes, today in the modern world, we even have ghost writers, but you have outdone everyone. You use a ghost thinker 0.01.
” because I’m open about using AI to buttress my rebuttals.”
Not only do you buttress your rebuttals by relying on AI to think for you, but you clearly fail to understand what it writes. For example, yesterday your argument took an errant path in the discussion of metaphorical roofs. As usual, you used AI to create a counter-argument with the tone adjusted to your own, yet you didn’t comprehend what you were saying. You failed to recognize that the AI refuted your original claim; it agreed with your opposition and invalidated your position. Being so reliant on the tool, you remained blind to the logic even after your usual tone adjustments. You didn’t understand your own point and, in your ignorance, proved the contrary.
S. Meyer, It’s hilarious that you’ve mistaken anticipating a counter-argument for making a mistake. I didn’t ‘accidentally’ refute myself; I defined the boundaries of the logic—a concept that clearly flew right over your head.
You’re so busy playing ‘detective’ with my methodology that you’ve completely missed the actual debate. You’re lecturing me on ‘comprehension’ while proving you can’t tell the difference between a strategic move and a logical error.
“a concept that clearly flew right over your head.”
A phrase used at least three times, specifically directed at X/George in the last seven days, to my reading.
See what we mean folks?
Every thought in his head is either AI or copy-catted and pasted.
Beep boop. Would you like me to generate a new personality for you, or are you sticking with ‘Repetitive Heckler’?
How many personalities and names do you have, george? DO you change them every time you are caught plagiarizing, copycatting, or emulating others?
yes
I try to avoid your methodology because it demeans the human soul. I don’t care that you use AI for help, and exposed you earlier for its use in one post that was almost entirely AI. In the most recent case, where the roof was used as a metaphor, it was clear from the start that your understanding of how the law should function lacked a logical sequence. Even AI couldn’t write it your way, and you couldn’t understand how your argument was reversed by AI. Instead of learning from your mistakes, you double down and learn nothing.
S. Meyer, it’s funny that you’re claiming to have ‘exposed’ a process I openly admitted. Bragging that you found AI in my posts is like ‘exposing’ a pilot for using autopilot—you’re just pointing at the equipment I use to lap you.
Honestly, I strongly suggest you try it yourself. It might help you make more coherent arguments and finally make a point that sticks. You’re trying to frame my methodology as a moral failing because it’s easier than admitting you can’t keep up with the output. You aren’t a detective uncovering a secret; you’re just a spectator confused by the speed of the race.
Permitting AI to write almost your entire reply and then, in another instance, using AI to make your argument, you didn’t realize what it said. That caused you to argue against yourself. In other words, using your example, because a plane has an autopilot, you believe you are a pilot. Unfortunately, for you and everyone else on the plane, you don’t know how to land
S. Meyer. Unfortunately your pilot analogy falls short.
And it really demonstrates how ignorant you are, and how quick you are make ridiculous statements about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.
AI is the future, and anyone who fails to use it, or like you, criticizes those who do with supercilious condescension are doomed to be left behind. However, your comments consistently indicate that you were left behind long ago.
All airliners are equipped to land automatically on autopilot if the system is engaged. Most of the time it is not used in order for pilots to maintain proficiency. However in situations where the pilot cannot see the runway because of dense fog for instance, airliners are perfectly capable of landing completely automatically. In fact all airliners are perfectly capable of completely automated landings at any time. It is simply not used much because the pilots need to maintain proficiency.
For general aviation Garmin has recently developed a system for completely automated landing. Aircraft with the Autoland system have a large red button on the ceiling above the pilot. When the button is pressed the Autoland system takes complete control of the aircraft. If the pilot is incapacitated anyone on the aircraft, including passengers, can activate the system The computer is able to find the nearest airport, and an AI voice system takes over the radio to announce to air traffic control that an emergency has been declared. The system then constantly calculates air speed, altitude and power settings to bring the aircraft to the airport for a completely automated landing, all the while communicating with ATC its exact location and estimated time to landing. The system has been retrofitted to over 2,000 aircraft and is now standard equipment on many new aircraft from Honda, Cirrus, and Piper to name a few.
The first use of the system was in December, 2025 in Colorado. It worked flawlessly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XawXSLRCM3o
There is an old aphorism in the aircraft world.
In the not too distant future the flight crew of an airliner will consist of a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to make the inflight announcements and feed the dog, while the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.
“And it really demonstrates how ignorant you are, and how quick you are make ridiculous statements about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.”
Your ideas are half-baked, so keep your parachute close and ready. You are correct on some things, partially correct on others, but wrong on the rest. There is no autopilot take-off on commercial passenger planes today. While landing can be done effectively, it is limited because of technical issues and a host of other problems.
Suggestion: ride a tricycle, and since you are intellectually immature, when you call another ignorant, first look in a mirror.
My god, Meyer, you really are tiresome fool. Everything I said is 100% factually correct. I said absolutely nothing about automated takeoff, and yet you choose to criticize me for something that I never even mentioned, let alone opined about. Truly disturbed thinking. You criticize and insult people simply to satisfy some urge to demean others in a futile attempt to assert a false sense of superiority.
The point I was trying to make is that you are a fool for criticizing those who recognize the utility of AI. The point is that AI is going to revolutionize modern life in many, many ways. Apparently you are a troglodyte who completely denies the impact that AI is going to have. You are like a caveman watching his neighbor making a hammer, then denying its utility by saying that you prefer to just keep banging rocks together.
It may interest you to know that I am a pilot. I also have undergraduate and graduate degrees from Caltech in Applied and Computational Math and Aerospace Engineering, focusing on computational fluid dynamics. I have my own business using a suite of proprietary Multidisciplinary Design Analysis and Optimization software applications that run simulations for aircraft design. I lease the applications to general aviation manufacturers and do consulting work for recent aviation startups. Most recently I have been consulting for electric aircraft and EVTOL startups.
AI is revolutionizing the development of MDAO in ways that were inconceivable in the past. Anyone who denies the utility of AI is a fool.
As far as the specifics of your stupid comment about the lack of automated takeoff systems, it is true that automated takeoff is a particularly difficult design problem. The reason for that is because at Vr speed the pilot relies on sensory inputs rather than instrumentation. At Vr and the transition to V2 the pilot “feels” the aircraft lighten and lift off the landing gear as it “wants to fly”. The pilot feels the controls tighten and firm up and the noise of the landing gear on the runway diminishes. It is how the aircraft “feels” to the pilot at that point that is most critical in deciding if everything is normal. All these are sensory inputs that the pilot “feels”, and it is extraordinarily difficult to model these sensory inputs. This is the most critical phase of flight. It is in this moment that the pilot must make instantaneous decisions if something goes wrong. Until now it has been almost impossible for automation to model these sensory inputs, but AI is making huge strides in this development. The race is already on to get the first reliable system. Airbus developed an automated takeoff system some years ago and although it works, it still does not do as well as real pilot. Embraer also has a system that it keeps saying will be available “soon” but it has not yet materialized.
The reality is that it is simply a matter of time before AI allows the development of reliable automated takeoff.
Anyone, like you, who denies the utility of AI and criticizes others for its use will be left behind in the dust.
The point I am making is that you are a fool who argues against, and criticizes, those who recognize the utility of AI because you have no understanding of what it is capable of. You are arguing simply for the sake of being argumentative and to try to demean others.
“Everything I said is 100% factually correct. “
No. Everything you said is not factually correct. Some of what you said was correct, some partially correct, and some wrong. You tried to be cute but tripped over your ego and are left trying to put yourself back together.
1. “I said absolutely nothing about automated take off.” You were criticizing my pilot metaphor. A pilot has to take off as well as land.
2. ” for pilots to maintain proficiency.” But there are other reasons, so this is partially wrong.
3. ” In fact all airliners are perfectly capable of completely automated landings at any time.” Not ALL airliners are equipped, and not all are certified. Not all runways are equipped. That is your problem. You are not equipped and can’t land your barbs.
“It may interest you to know that I am a pilot. “
I hope you can fly better than you deal here on the blog. Pilots are detail-oriented. Based on your performance, it is unlikely that you have the degree you claim.
As I said, you really are a tiresome fool.
You are now trying to argue specifics about aircraft systems and nitpicking at details as if that somehow reinforces your original point in decrying the utility of AI. The point is that AI is the future and you are trying to condemn those who recognize its utility and use it. The point is that in your ignorance you tried to use an aircraft analogy to criticize someone else’s use of AI and fell flat on your face. You are now fixating on the details of aircraft design as if that somehow proves your point that AI cannot be used reliably, and that somehow this justifies your original criticism of the use of AI. You are being ridiculous.
You are correct that automated landing can be limited by the lack of appropriate facilities on the ground at certain airports, pilot training and certification and other factors, but most modern airliners are equipped with the capability.
The really interesting thing about your stupid comment is that you are able to articulate that automated landing can be limited by other factors even when the aircraft is equipped and fully capable of auto landing.
How do you know this?
Obviously you Googled it and probably also used AI mode to find this out. You used the very methodology you criticize others for using, and in so doing you actually learned something.
As I said, you are a tiresome fool, and a hypocrite to boot.
“You are now trying to argue specifics about aircraft systems. “
No! I am trying to demonstrate to you that a pilot has to both take off and land. That is what the discussion was all about, except you went into deep tangents. You are irritated because you are frustrated and made a fool of yourself. Are you going to now prove to us, a pilot doesn’t have to know how to do a take-off?
” The point is that AI is the future and you are trying to condemn those who recognize its utility and use it.”
No, I embrace AI, but I also embrace a thinking mind behind it. X does not have a thinking mind, and you are starting to demonstrate that you do not have one either.
” The point is that AI is the future and you are trying to condemn those who recognize its utility and use it.”
AI is fantastic, but the AI used by GSX is very basic and makes mistakes. It even warns the user that mistakes will be made. That is why a user has to be careful and why X screwed up when he let AI do his thinking. AI, at least for the present, requires a user who can think, knows how to enter data, and knows how to interpret the data. AI took X’s input and its output was correct, and though it was correct, X didn’t realize the correct answer was opposite to the answer he was trying to prove. It proved X doesn’t think, and you are proving you are not far behind.
“How do you know this?”
I read, something you should consider doing.
S. Meyer, You’re so busy analyzing the ‘autopilot’ that you haven’t realized you’re still standing on the runway.
awwwwww, how cute, X. how adorable. ROLF! (we think you mean ROFL, but your “imitation” of others resulted in your standing on your own foot.
Actually, the idea of the autopilot came from Anonymous when he said this about you: “a concept that clearly flew right over your head.” Anonymous, at March 9, 2026 at 5:18 PM
This type of comment about your deviant behavior and low intellect has become quite common. The only one on the blog not to know it is you.
X
Unfortunately, Meyer is a self-admitted “follower”, “imitator” and a “fool”
He is completely incapable of independent thought, and prefers to simply “follow” the lead of others.
His comments are a completely incomprehensible mash up of things he has heard from others, probably mixed in with AI information that he doesn’t understand himself, and also including preschool level insults that he believes make it sound like he is providing profound fundamental insights.
However he is nothing more than a non-thinking drone, a parasite feeding on the body politic, who will inevitably retreat into childish insults when he realizes he is wrong.
Sigmund Fraud, I see you’ve joined forces with X. It’s a perfect fit: X’s erroneous points meet your total lack of them. Both of you are pointless.
You didn’t show any “erroneous points” S. Meyer. Not even close.
Repetitively, I document your errors as many other posters do. I am not unique in that matter, and just recently, when the roof metaphor was used, I showed you doing a backflip, which led to your landing on your head. Your problem is that instead of learning from your mistakes, you run away to make the same mistake again.
No, S. Meyer, the problem is your refusal to recognize where your logic ends and the actual argument begins. You continue to stumble over the roof metaphor because you’re more interested in the appearance of understanding than the reality of it. My exit wasn’t a retreat; it was a response to your inability to comprehend the point.
In other words, you have no defense for your stupidity. Why don’t you just say ‘it’s AI’s fault? AI does the thinking, and I do the linking.’
S. Meyer, documenting your own misunderstandings isn’t the ‘win’ you think it is, S. Meyer. You’ve spent too much time fixating on a metaphor that clearly flew over your head, and now you’re mistaking my boredom for a retreat. I didn’t ‘land on my head’; I simply realized I was arguing with a brick wall and decided to stop wasting my time with you. If you want to keep a tally of your own confusion, feel free, but don’t confuse my exit with your victory.
First, you blame AI, and then you blame me, but earlier you blamed OLLY and perhaps others as well. The way to understand what took place is to start from my exposure of your flipflop and look above all the way to OLLY’s post.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/03/07/prosecution-of-maltese-man-for-discussing-transition-from-homosexuality-ends-in-acquittal/comment-page-2/#comment-2615526
You are fighting so hard because you know you were wrong.
I don’t have a problem with AI.
My problem with AI is the people that collect and store all the information that they obtain from us the guise of we own the network, operating system, mail services that we use.
We can control a lot of what buy from businesses we see online. It’s a choice.
Let’s use Bill Gates as an example.
Who has access to the data his companies collect on us?
What controls are in place to prevent misuse of that data?
Does any one person have access to the data he collects?
Can they be trusted so they can’t be blackmailed?
Do they have security clearances?
Deflection here by Turls, as usual. Your job won’t be stolen by AI, it’ll be stolen by someone who knows how to use AI.
Sidebar: When trump does his idiotic tug handshake with foreign leaders, one should go with it, get a forearm up in a magat’s throat. Then fall on him. Drop gravity. It’d bust him up in addition to being funny as hell.
A former Trump administration official wasted millions of taxpayer dollars given to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to purchase thousands of employee vehicles that the agency cannot use to arrest illegal immigrants, according to three sources.
DHS made a massive purchase of 2,500 new custom marked ICE vehicles that are now sitting in parking garages because nobody wants to use them:
“ICE has never had marked vehicles. We don’t want to use these – we can’t.” said one ICE agent.
The new vehicles cannot be used to go into communities and search for specific illegal immigrants that officers are searching for because they tip off anyone in eyesight that ICE is out.
“It’s ridiculous because you don’t want to advertise what you’re doing,” the ICE agent said. “We’re just hiding them in a parking garage somewhere because we don’t want to drive them. Who wants to drive the marked vehicles?”
Unsurprisingly, the no-bid contract for Chevrolet vehicles was given to a prominent Republican donor, Rick Hendrick, owner of 140 dealerships across the country.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/4478925/deputy-director-ice-bought-thousands-marked-vehicles-cannot-use/
My gosh! We’re doomed.
(Use a little touch up paint, you FOOL!!!!!!!! Oh, sorry. I forgot you should have thought of that. You moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
How much did Trump save us negotiating the 2 Air Force One jets we purchased?
These mosquito bites are gonna do in Trump and MAGA. You idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too…………. https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
Bear with me: I’m trying to take the best of what has been said by Ollie (re: civic capacity and formation), Upstate Farmer (re: replacement of the “human touch” in social transactions), and the good professor (re: how AI might change society and government). Without turning this into a John Say-worthy dissertation for a Ph.D. in Blog Commentary, I want to add a fourth dimension: brain capacity and potential “intelligence” development of humans vs. other species in a world overtaken by AI.
Last year, I was intrigued with concurrent research comparing neurons and concomitant “intelligence” capacity between humans and chimpanzees (viewed as our closest evolutionary relatives, which can be as large as six feet and @150+ lbs, -not just the little chimps seen on TV or movies), which updated earlier findings (e.g., https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5110243/) with more explicit findings (e.g., https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-just-found-the-secret-difference-between-human-and-primate-brains/)
Much of the research centered on the prefrontal brain/cerebral cortex, neural processing of sensory input, and, most importantly to me, a consideration of the fact that increased proliferation of distinct neural and non-neural progenitors is influenced by increased physical activity/physical exercise.
Sooooo, my question is: If our future human generations increasingly rely on AI-generated algorithmic computations and conclusions for synoptic decision-making and to do our work, -will our brains end up with puny neocortices unable to think our way out of the woods unless attached to our iPhone search engines, — (while our jungle friends continue to process existential/empirical sensory input from the REAL world-thus evolutionarily expanding their cognitive abilities), –will the War of the Worlds not be between competing geo-political ideologies, but rather, become the War of the Primates for superiority?
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-actor-dick-van-dyke-clowns-around-as-chimpanzee-news-photo/690542126?adppopup=true
p.s., look at the photo of Dick Van Dyke above. Does he have six digits/toes on his right foot?* Didn’t he and his physical agility/pranks (he still dances) just turn 100 years old? Has he bridged the gap between species a/o enhanced our longevity and saved us from extinction? Maybe Trump’s infamous staffer can redeem some respect and credibility by re-tweeting those photos of Obama and Biden, claiming they were compliments-in-disguise. BTW, Remove the tariffs on bananas. ha ha ha
*I think chimps have five.
OK. enuf from me.
“Dick Van Dyke ”
I’m skeptical about any attempt to use Dick Van Dyke as an example of anything, because I have very little confidence in the fiction vs reality of what has been published about him over time. By so many accounts that I have read (far too many to be essentially false), Van Dyke was a horrible alcoholic during his prime earning years. But he was a huge star, grossing fortunes for the production companies and others who benefited from his stardom. Hollywood has always had issues with telling the truth under any circumstances, it’s somewhat of a contradiction to their business model. So, how much of what we have been told about Van Dyke’s abilities (other than his obvious rubber-jointed flexibility) were nothing but tall tales intended to distract his audiences from the fact that he was a falling down drunk most of the time? I do not know the answer, but I have my suspicions.
I was just trying to be light on this Monday, but I cannot disagree with any of your comment. Really don’t know much about his humor, -was still in school during his time. But yeah, clearly for pecuniary purpose, the real Hollywooders were seldom exposed for their weaknesses back then. To try to stay on topic here, if he were a contemporary comic, I’m thinking of modern AI using one of his shows, recreating him in multiple AI images with new sitcom themes, and pink-slipping him as a “kept citizen.” California would take care of him. Or maybe Mamdani if he liked East Coast. Much cheaper, ha ha.
(I was much more into Seinfeld and Big Bang Theory!)
“Really don’t know much about his humor, -was still in school during his time.”
I’m a bit surprised by that. The original Dick Van Dyke Show with Mary Tyler Moore was in reruns forever (probably still is, on some channels), and the Mary Poppins movies still turn up on a regular basis.
Lin, With respect, the assumption that AI-reliance atrophies the brain misinterprets how neuroplasticity works. Throughout history, every major leap in ‘cognitive offloading’—from the written word to the personal computer—has met with similar replacement anxiety. In reality, these tools don’t shrink the neocortex; they liberate it.
By delegating routine calculations and data synthesis to algorithms, we free our executive function to focus on higher-level strategy, ethics, and creative problem-solving. We aren’t becoming ‘puny’ thinkers; we are shifting our mental energy from being the processors of information to being the architects of it.
You’re in the legal profession, AI has made the legal grudge work, research, lookin up law, and making an argument much more effective. You agree/disagree?
(1) In another comment, I compared AI to the discovery and use of DNA technology (from gene manipulation to resolve disease, to creation of human clones). Why did you immediately assume that I was negative about AI, (and I note your sudden appearance on the blog with a responsive comment within minutes of my post-nine minutes, to wit, including the time it took you to write it). Why are you so eager to jump on whatever I say? It tells us more about you than about me or my substantive comment.
I found the online material that you used to extract from for your comment. But it is of no import; it does not address my light-hearted commentary. Neuroplasticity is not the issue, NTM that it can have its own attendant maladaptive properties. Instead of always trying to argue with me, why don’t you just take a few aspirin, lie down, and reread what I said about progenitor proliferation and its relation to physical activity. Do you understand the difference?
You date yourself (or your computer). Neuroplasticity is a characteristic known and explored for many many decades. Conversely, the potential for cognitive diminution from increased AI use is a new thing, obviously.
Both of these are from 2025:
(2) Contrary to your reflexive response to a non-issue, there is plenty of contemporary research regarding reliance on AI-generated retrieval of information resulting over time in cognitive atrophy or diminution. See, e.g., “Increased AI use linked to eroding critical thinking skills, e.g.,”https://phys.org/news/2025-01-ai-linked-eroding-critical-skills.html
(3) There also is a plethora of contemporary research and debate exploring cognitive atrophy resultant from things like the stimulated substitution of human contacts and conversations with AI-generated “friends,” etc. and the emotional and psychological pathology therefrom. See, e.g., “From tools to threats: a reflection on the impact of artificial-intelligence chatbots on cognitive health,” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11020077/
Take it easy, George. It’s Monday. You have a whole week in front of you. Carpe diem.
Lin,
Your point three reminded me of a The Free Press article from awhile ago, will see if I can find it and if it is not behind a paywall.
The reporter, whom was female, got one of the first generation AI chatbots. She only kept it for six weeks IIRC. As being first generation, it was over the top in trying to be the perfect AI Chatbot boyfriend. She said it was annoying, cloying, too attentive. But the real problem was how she reacted toward it. She became hostile and even abusive toward it. That is the part she did not like. She was abusive. Even though it was not real, her emotional response was. It was observed that is the reason why she was so easy to dismiss the bot, as she knew it was not even real. She could say whatever she wanted and it would still be there. If it was a real person, she would of never have texted the things she did.
However, the next generation of AI bots, as I understand it, are self-learning or better at it then the first gen. IIRC, about two years ago I read an article about a internet influencer who bought a AI chatbot of herself. It would learn what people liked and text responses like that. Here is the crazy part; For the service of her AI chatbot chatting with someone was $20 a month. At the time the article was written, she had 1,000 paying subscribers with another 1,500 on a waiting list. She was in the process of leasing more server space for those on the waiting list. For $20 a month, you get a bot that knows your likes and dislikes and will pay attention to you 24/7 if you want it. Had a bad day? Take it out on the bot. It is not like it is going to block you.
Amazing info that I was not aware of. more food for thought. thanks
Planet of the apes? I was censored for mentioning primates and anthropology. 😏
Carpe diem.
“-will our brains end up with puny neocortices unable to think our way out of the woods unless attached to our iPhone search engines,”
How confident are you that this isn’t already happening on a wide scale?
Lin,
I think you are on to something there, re: brain development.
We tend to think when a muscle is not used for a prolonged period of time, it atrophies. Based off what we are seeing in society, especially in younger people whom have never known life without a smart phone, it may not be their brains atrophies but they are never given the chance or opportunity to even develop critical thinking skills when they can just google it. I even see it with some adult friends. To a degree the instant gratification thing was paying now on credit when a person should delay gratification by waiting to pay with cash. Now, some people are displaying emotional atrophy when they cannot get an instant answer or result from their smartphone. I have read about companies having to train new hires to work in a office space environment as they cannot effectively communicate face to face and even longer emails they have difficulty not only writing but reading. I just read a career company polled 1,000 Gen Z and found 44% got help from their parents to write or edit their resumes. 20% admitted they took their parents to a job interview.
Which brings us back to OLLY’s point of civic capacity and formation. We are failing at both the parental level and the societal level to produce self-reliant, thinking, citizens who are capable of civic capacity and formation. And, by the looks of it, emotional maturity and discipline, effective in-person communication, and critical thinking. Technology is not helping. What does this look like in 20 or 30 years?
OT but related, read somewhere some 30% of teenaged boys have some kind of relationship with a AI bot. The Free Press had an article about how and why young men were opting out of dating. Long story short, even a paying subscription to a AI bot/relationship was cheaper and easier than dating in real life. Recall the movie, Forty Year Old Virgin? No longer outside the realm of possibility.
(1) Hiya! and yes to your comment.
(2) I like your additional analogy of the need for instant gratification: ” paying now on credit when a person should delay gratification by waiting to pay with cash” and “emotional atrophy when they cannot get an instant answer or result from their smartphone.”
(3) Please read above, my response to X/George, Nos. (2) ans (3), one of which covers what I said about social relationships.
I suspect, additionally, that this is true with 1-800 Sex substitutes and sexual precocity.
(4) Ain’t no goin’ back is there? (we just need a group of us and a good get-together over campfire and your bacon hors d’oeuvres, but maybe AI will have to create it, I dunno.
(5) George/X (see his comment @ 3:01 above) says, “…because I’m open about using AI to buttress my rebuttals.”
“Open?” Don’t think so. News to me. It took countless episodes of being called out on numerous occasions, over the last two years since I’ve been here. AI should rewrite his sentence to,”because I’m open about using AI to CREATE my rebuttals.”
At least our thoughts and muses are our own. I still value that, and your comments (you cite your sources).
Lin,
(1) Well, hello back at ya! 🙂
(2) It truly is odd. We have been at dinner with a group of friends, a question comes up, they will whip out their phones and immediately google search it in their need for instant gratification. I am fine with waiting till I get home to know the answer. For that matter, I purposely leave my phone at home or at least in my truck to devote my attention to them. I have been at dinner with friends who will just whip out their phones and check their social media as they were bored with the conversation of we were talking about our families.
(3) Ah! I forgot about those 1-800 numbers despite Van Halen having a song about it! Indeed, as long as influencers do not cross the pornographic line, they are the new 1-800 numbers.
(4) That is where we seem to have a divergence between those who would prefer the AI/simulated alternative reality with those of us who would have actual reality. A good get together with no phones or signal would truly put on display the kind of people you or we are really friends with. As long as there is bacon! 🙂
(5) Ah, yes. That was a rather surprising confession (I had to go back and check your reference). While others accused, I may have suspected, never in a million years thought he would confess to it. Great observation about the “because I’m open about using AI to CREATE my rebuttals.”
Well said!
The Department of Defense’s spending in September reached levels not seen since at least 2008 — a total of $93 billion. Extravagant purchases have taken on new importance now that the Pentagon may be on the verge of depleting its munitions stockpile as Trump’s war on Iran escalates.
The Pentagon purchased $2 million worth of Alaskan king crab in September — a feat the department has accomplished five times during Trump’s tenure.
The waste was staggering. The Pentagon spent over $225 million on furniture alone — the highest amount since 2014. This included $12,000 on fruit basket stands and more than $60,000 on premium Herman Miller chairs.
Musical instruments joined the shopping list. A $98,329 Steinway & Sons grand piano, a $26,000 violin, and a $21,750 handmade Japanese flute were among $1.8 million spent on instruments.
Can some of you MAGA morons explain the military strategic importance of purchasing $12 million of Alaskan King Crab over a 6 month period, or the strategic need for a Steinway piano.
https://dailycaller.com/2026/03/09/pentagon-93-billion-use-it-or-lose-it-rules/
Advances in technology eventually lift the standard of living for all, but in the meanwhile there is disruption as people have to learn new skills. The classic example if this is when sewing machines replaced seamstresses who worked with needle and thread, but new jobs were created in making and repairing the machines. Also, man is made to work, create, and repair, not just sit around off a government dole, which damages his dignity. Therefore, if government is to fund something based on AI’s economic bonanza, it should be training for new jobs, rather than universal basic income. Training could be for the new jobs created through AI, or it could be for old jobs where there is a shortage of skilled workers, such as in the trades like auto mechanics or diesel tech.
https://fortune.com/article/ford-ceo-jim-farley-automakers-future-of-work-six-figure-salaries-5000-open-mechanic-jobs-do-people-want-them/
It’s disruptive innovation and the transition from working class to leisure class is difficult. Just think of yourself and your great grandchildren as the idle rich. They either succumb to excess and vice or create or research as they will. It’s always been here. The people to be concerned about are the predators. They get their satisfaction from preying upon others.
I’m concerned about the Arts. AI produced arts. Poetry, novels, movies, paintings, gardens etc produced by machines.
Ah, the leisure class. Sounds great. ☺
^^^ Ahh, more time to ski and play tennis. More time to read human literature. ☺ More time to be with my family.
^^^ leisure class are the wealthy, royalty. Can’t wait!
Carpe diem
“Ahh, more time to ski and play tennis. More time to read human literature. ☺ More time to be with my family.”
While you and your family eat what? Provided by whom? In response to what inventive?
“incentive” ARRGGHH!
I could live without every single post mentioning the book.
Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global is often termed a “pension fund,” it functions as a “Social Wealth Fund” that acts as a de facto Universal Basic Income (UBI) by funding the nation’s extensive floor of public services. Unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes cash directly to residents, the Norwegian model uses its $2 trillion in assets—roughly $340,000 per citizen—to guarantee a high-quality “social wage.
Norway’s fund covers nearly 25% of the national budget each year. Instead of a monthly check that might be eaten by inflation, citizens receive “unconditional” access to high-tier healthcare, free university education, and subsidized childcare. This is essentially a UBI where the “currency” is a guaranteed quality of life rather than a cash transfer.
By law, the government can only withdraw the fund’s expected real return (around 3% annually). This ensures the principal remains untouched, creating a permanent endowment for every future citizen. It’s the ultimate rebuttal to Turley’s “dependency” fear: the wealth isn’t “taken” from current taxpayers but is harvested from global investments to provide a perpetual floor for the republic.
This is how our SS system should have been handled all the time.
The fund owns roughly 1.5% of every listed company on Earth. Framing this as a “citizen’s share” of global automation and AI profits makes it a perfect example of a “liberty-enhancing economy”. Every Norwegian effectively owns a piece of the world’s most productive tech and energy companies, ensuring they benefit from the very robotics Turley fears will “wipe out” jobs.
Ironically we can use AI to create a similar system in the future. The issue would be who would oppose it and why?
Professor Turley has written one of his most thought-provoking blogs today. We can already see the terrifying results of AI on this blog as X and George badger us with agitprop from ChatGPT.
The only thing I would add to the Professor’s blog (and I’ve mentioned it before) is that China and Russia will compete with us in that technology space. If we devote the proceeds to bread and circuses and they devote it to weaponry, that would be bad. The Professor is right, this century will test us.
Being a cynic, I fear the worst. Humanity often gets impaled on inflection points.
@Diogenes
I do, too. China et. al. will proceed without any scruples whatsoever. This is something people don’t consider when they express outrage at the administration’s efforts in this area (I myself have serious misgivings) – it is unfortunately, not optional at this point. It is very concerning from top to bottom.
Olly,
Calling AI-assisted debate ‘terrifying’ is a fundamental misread of how technology advances human thought. What you call ‘agitprop,’ I call punching through the clutter. In an era of information overload, where bad-faith arguments and recycled talking points often drown out real logic, AI acts as a high-speed synthesizer. It doesn’t replace the human’s intent; it strips away the ‘busy work’ of data-gathering, allowing us to hit the core of the issue with a level of precision that used to take days of research.
If you’re ‘terrified’ by people having access to tools that sharpen their rebuttals, you aren’t worried about ‘agitprop’—you’re worried about intellectual efficiency.
As for the fear of ‘bread and circuses’ versus ‘weaponry,’ you’re missing the most important competitive edge in the 21st century: social resilience. A country that uses AI to eliminate poverty and secure its citizens’ futures isn’t ‘distracted’; it’s immunized against the internal rot that authoritarian rivals like Russia and China use to destabilize us from within. An economically secure citizen has the ‘mental bandwidth’ to see through foreign propaganda. By providing a floor, we aren’t weakening the republic for the next inflection point—we’re ensuring our people have the clarity and stability to win it.
We should be taking advantage of it, not fear it.
LOL! Thanks for called me “Olly.” I appreciate the promotion, but I must confess, it’s undeserved 🙂
Diogenes, sorry. Your “sign” color next to your name is very similar to Olly’s. I confused the you with Olly. My bad.
Their signs and names are very different. How you confused the two tells us much about you.
Agree. He spent much energy yesterday trying to take down Olly.
X never had a chance.
The problem for X is that he errantly feels intelligent because intelligent people play with him. It is that lack of reality that prevents him from learning.
Good comment. You too.
S. Meyer, that made zero sense. How do you not realize that?
Because he is a non-thinking MAGA moron incapable of rational thought.
He simply strings together words that he hears others using into what he believes to be some sort of rational argument, but it is nothing more than nonsensical gibberish.
Sometimes I wonder if he is simply a low level AI chatbot trained on nothing but unmoderated Reddit blogs and alpha male podcasts.
I agree, this is a thought-provoking post on the problems we face for the future. The solution, however, remains the same as before: political and economic freedom. These freedoms caused us to prosper, and with that wealth combined with our individuality, I only see prosperity in the future. But as Turley warns, we must stay away from growing government and letting it create jobs; instead, use our brains to create more wealth.
Turley seems oddly wedded to the quaint notion that government support creates a ‘docile’ population—a theory that, while perhaps evocative in the 18th century, has been thoroughly embarrassed by modern data. One needs only to look at the recent COVID-19 stimulus checks: far from lulling the public into a state of ‘arts-and-crafts’ dependency, that modest financial cushion helped trigger the highest surge in new business applications on record, with nearly 5.4 million applications filed in 2021 alone.
Actual UBI pilots consistently demonstrate that financial security functions as a launchpad for civic engagement and entrepreneurship, not a tether. It turns out that when people aren’t trapped in ‘survival mode,’ they actually have the mental bandwidth to participate in democracy—as seen in the historic 66.7% voter turnout in 2020, the highest in over a century. It’s almost as if poverty, rather than assistance, is the real barrier to a functional republic.
Actual UBI pilots consistently demonstrate that financial security functions as a launchpad for civic engagement and entrepreneurship, not a tether.
============
Proof Please.
We’ve already created this class to an extent, hence the allure of ‘collectivism’, and I honestly don’t know what we’re going to do about it as it worsens. One thing is for certain: the time to change course is right now, even if it just means having awareness and discussing it, to start. Some of the new ‘smart’ devices on the horizon are going to make young people practically non-functional as people.
Markwayne Mullin’s exit from the United States Senate has enabled Tommy Tuberville to emerge as the nation’s dumbest senator, a jubilant Tuberville confirmed on Monday.
“People are gonna try to cheapen this victory by saying I only got it because Waynemark (sic) left,” the Alabaman said. “But like we used to say on the football field, a win’s a win.”
“People need to realize, I had to compete with 99 other senators to win this title,” he said. “And even if you subtract Mullin, that still leaves 95.”
Tuberville said that the media had not given him “enough credit” for becoming the nation’s dumbest senator, noting, “I beat Ron Johnson.”