Critically Thinking about AI Regulations — 2

This is a follow-up to Part 1, so please read that commentary first.

There are few pressing societal issues more consequential than our proper dealing with the explosion of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Let’s see if we (a group of Critical Thinkers?) can come up with a meaningful answer to a profoundly important question: Is AI regulation needed — and, if so, what?

The challenge here is that this is a very complicated problem. My strategy for Critically Thinking about complicated issues is to first try to simplify things.

Simplification Step #1

We need to recognize that there are two (2) major aspects of the AI issue: Development and Deployment. After we’ve grasped that, we need to identify which of these two we have the greatest concern with — as that would be where we would consider regulating. IMO, the answer is Deployment.

It’s somewhat like the initial development of a gun. A gun can be used for good or bad. As such, our gun regulations should be focused on minimizing the bad (the deployment), while not restricting the good.

Simplification Step #2

AI is an abstract, nebulous concept to most people, so it will be easier to deal with if we can represent it in a more concrete way, using an analogy. I’m suggesting that, as a reasonable example of AI Deployment that we visualize we are dealing with a mechanical robot that is being given intelligence. To make this even less abstract, let’s name this intelligent robot: AIDE (Artificial Intelligence Deployment Example).

Simplification Step #3

For this discussion, let’s look at AIDE as being a super competent assistant who can make our life more interesting and productive. For example, our AIDE can instantly (and inexpensively) provide us with an answer to a wide variety of questions (e.g., a good recipe for a chocolate cake). Our AIDE can also quickly give us advice on a huge assortment of topics, from relationships to religion. Further, we can adjust our query on the fly. For example, if the recipe AIDE provided includes something we are allergic to, tell that to our AIDE and a revised recipe quickly and magically appears. What’s not to like?

Simplification Step #4

For starters, the evidence is mounting that reliance on our AIDE results in people being less human. Think about that… For a good discussion of some examples of this, please read this well-written article: Five (5) Dehumanizing Dangers of AI… But we’re just getting started…

Simplification Step #5

It doesn’t take too much Critical Thinking to see that relying on our AIDE can quickly become addictive. So what? The #1 concern should be that our brain is like any other muscle in our body: the less it gets used, the more likely it will atrophy and literally become impaired. This should be obvious, and research has already verified this. (Also here, here, here, etc.) What are the societal consequences of over one hundred million brain-dead Americans?

Simplification Step #6

As bad as this is, I have skipped over a BIGGIE. Up to now I’ve shown that there are several major liabilities, even with the assumption that our AIDE was giving us accurate advice. But what if it is NOT? There are two primary situations here: a) that AIDE accidentally gives us factually wrong information, or b) that AIDE knowingly gives us factually wrong information.

Let’s look at both of these cases a bit closer:

a) The evidence says that most popular AIs (AIDEs) operate in a manner that will guarantee a lot of wrong answers. Why? Because there is no “thinking” going on here. Instead, most AIs are programmed to tell us what the consensus view is — and that is frequently wrong. See my article.

b) In some cases, an AI will purposefully give more weight and evidence to one side of an argument — i.e., knowingly give us a biased answer. E.g., if the AI authors are Leftists, that will be incorporated into our AIDE.

Takeaway #1 —

I think we have gone far enough to be able to draw reasonable conclusions about our initial question: Is AI regulation needed?

It should be apparent that nothing in the first five Simplification Steps is regulatable. The sixth step has some possibilities, but how do we regulate:

a) a fundamentally inferior model, or

b) a politically biased model?

Takeaway #2 —

So what do we do to prevent the horrific consequences of Steps #4 & #5?

Fortunately, we have the answer: in K-12, formally teach our children to be Critical Thinkers. That gives them the most powerful tool in our arsenal: an instinctive ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The fact that ZERO States are doing this is simply criminal.

The Bottom Line:

It’s easy to blame politicians for not acting intelligently to protect citizens from pending threats. In this case, this is a complicated problem, so the “acting intelligently” path is not obvious to most people.

If legislators really wanted to protect us (America), their #1 priority would be to quickly get as many Americans as possible educated to be Critical Thinkers. Of course, that would result in NUMEROUS other major benefits!

Let’s hope that at least ONE State gets this, and sets an example the other States will quickly follow. This window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

PS — Part 3 will briefly discuss some of the moral consequences of AI.

©2026 John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)