I read recently in The Atlantic Monthly that artificial intelligence firms are hiring and paying big salaries to philosophers to help them think through the issues facing the developers of AI.
They can send me a check, but I’ll give them some advice for free.
Limitations little discussed
First, anybody doing anything with the internet or artificial intelligence should read and discuss Hubert Dreyfus’s book On the Internet and Ragnar Fjelland’s article “Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized”.
Why those two? It is not, as one might assume, because either man is an “AI skeptic” or because either man warns against the dangers of AI. There are plenty of warnings from others. No, these works are useful because they describe in cogent ways the limitations of AI—limitations that will persist no matter how the technology develops.
What limitations would those be?
One obvious one is embodiment. AI does not have a body. AI cannot give you a hug if you need one. AI cannot breastfeed a baby while gazing into her eyes with love. AI does not have emotions, so AI will not be able to understand beings who do.
The heart of Dreyfus and Fjelland’s argument is that AI lacks the ability that comes with experience. It cannot gain the skills needed for the development of the kind of tacit knowledge that characterizes those who have mastered a practice. Fjelland writes:
An important part of expertise is tacit. The problem facing the development of expert systems, that is, systems that enable a computer to simulate expert performance (for example medical diagnostics) is that an important part of the expert knowledge is tacit. If experts try to articulate the knowledge they apply in their performance, they normally regress to a lower level. Therefore, according to Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus, expert systems are not able to capture the skills of an expert performer.
Put another way, experts can rarely reduce what makes them an expert into “rules” or algorithms, so it will be impossible to input this kind of expertise into machines.
Machines can simulate expertise to human beings who lack expertise, just as con men do all the time. As author Kelsey Piper notes in an article titled “The literary world is sleepwalking into an AI disaster,” the “prestigious” literary organization Commonwealth Foundation recently announced the regional winners of their 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize. Unfortunately, readers began suspecting that several of the winning stories were written by AI.
What tipped them off? Or, rather, “What tipped them off that didn’t tip off the readers at the Commonwealth Foundation?” According to Ms. Piper:
AI chatbots love metaphors and similes, and they often spit out ones that sound vaguely pleasing but are logically incoherent or ascribe properties to things that don’t make sense.” Thus, “The Serpent in the Grove” gave us, “The girl smiled like sunrise over a sink.” “The Bastion’s Shadow” says, “She carried it now in her bag, heavy as a charm.” “Mehendi Nights” describes something as “swaying against plaster like a warning bell.”
Another characteristic, it seems, is a “fondness for conjunctions that combine one thing that is abstract and/or incorporeal with another thing that is concrete and/or sensory.” Examples include passages such as “collect your griefs like stones in your pockets,” “connections between sorrow and the taste of metal,” “its presence a quiet pulse against her thigh.” Ms. Piper notes in “The Bastion’s Shadow” the phrase “stone had begun to carry the stories it couldn’t release,” and, in “The Serpent in the Grove,” these two descriptions: “A fact that felt like a small warm animal in her hands” and “her laugh is bright as zinc.”
“It’s not bad writing, necessarily,” says Ms. Piper gracefully. Perhaps. But one suspects the real issue is not merely that the prose was produced by AI, but that the prose produced by AI fooled the judges when others so easily sussed it out. When the standards for good writing, good art, and good architecture become as thin and untethered to reality as they currently have become, it will be as difficult for certain groups to distinguish between AI productions and actual human creations as it was in the Old West for people with no knowledge of medicine to distinguish between the snake oil salesman and the real doctor. Especially since the one promises so much more, so much more easily gained, than the other.
But consider now the example of a repairman, Mark, who used to fix things in my house—anything from plumbing to electrical to household appliances. It is not merely that an AI does not have a body or hands to do this work, or that the AI wouldn’t be able to carry on an interesting conversation with me about theology while it works (Mark’s father was a famous Calvinist theologian). It is this: I can’t tell you how many times Mark would have the wall opened up and exclaim: “Why would someone have done this?” Then, after about ten minutes, he would say: “Ohh, I get it.” And then he would explain to me the “workaround” some previous repairman did, and how he could either completely replace it or make another workaround that some other repairman would need to decipher decades hence. In many older houses, there are layers of workarounds needing to be deciphered before anything can be done.
For more examples, see Michael Crawford’s examples about motorcycle repair in Shop Class as Soul Craft. The tacit knowledge and judgment of the expert cannot be translated into algorithms. AI can help provide and sort through masses of information to help inform judgment, but it cannot make a wise judgment.
Here is my free advice to AI developers and users. The trick to AI is figuring out what it can do and do well and what it simply can’t do. AI can provide the resources to help people make better judgments. But since AI can’t really make wise judgments—especially the kind that depend on emotional connection and a sense of what other people need or the limits they can tolerate—don’t try to make AI do that or depend on it to do that.
AI will eliminate what is already artificial
To be honest, though, I’m less interested in AI than I am in humans. I am not of the camp that says “AI is coming; you cannot stop it.” I suppose, like nuclear bombs, we could restrict it if we chose to do so. That would probably be beneficial in some ways, and unwise in others.
What I want to warn about is not the “AI invasion” as much as the invasion that has already taken root. In one sense, it took root when Adam and Eve made a certain choice in the Garden. But that choice has taken on new forms with every advance in technology.
What I want to warn about is not specifically the “inhumanity” of AI. I want to warn about the inhumanity of humans dealing with other humans, especially in the workings of modern bureaucracy. Will machines take people’s jobs? If you write email messages with meaningless bureaucratic verbiage that sound like a machine wrote it then you will be replaced by a machine. If you are a “human resources” person who cares little about the actual humans you are meant to serve—if they are simply numbers on a spreadsheet to you, and you can never make sensible judgments about “special cases”—then you will be replaced by a machine. If you are acting like a machine; if you are a bureaucrat who acts without emotion, without wisdom and judgment, and carries out rules like an algorithm; if a machine can do what you do the way you are doing it; then you will be replaced by a machine.
In an episode of the television series Westworld, a man gets a call from a company where he has applied for a job. The voice on the phone goes through the normal patter about “Thanks, but we’ve decided to go with someone else.” The voice responds kindly to a few of his questions. But then, at a certain point, he senses something and asks: “I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but are you a human being?” The call hangs up.
Was it a robot or not? We never know. Would it have mattered? If robots replaced administrators, would anyone notice? A colleague suggests we get ChatGPT to write our assessment reports. Would they notice?
Since so much writing produced these days is robotic, much of it could be done by a robot. That’s sad, but when your educational system spends all its time training dutiful bureaucrats on spreadsheets and “business writing” and little or no time reading beautiful English prose, then this is the result: people without words mouthing gibberish that is largely empty of thought.
The great parody of the ChatGPT culture can be found in a recent episode of the sophomoric comedy South Park. Some students are using ChatGPT to write their papers. When their teacher finds out, instead of being angry, he is ecstatic because now he can get ChatGPT to write the comments on his students’ papers, so he doesn’t have to read them.
A robot is writing the papers, a robot is commenting on them, and no humans are involved. So why do it? Wouldn’t it be better not to perpetuate the illusion of education? And yet schools indulge this illusion all the time. So I suppose ChatGPT is the appropriate tool for the culture we’ve created.
Also in this episode, young Wendy complains to her boyfriend Stan that he doesn’t respond to her texts quickly and thoughtfully, in the way one of her friend’s boyfriends does. When Stan checks with this young man, “How do you do this?” he is told, “ChatGPT.” He just inputs the text into the system and posts the response. Stan is reticent at first, but he can’t resist the social pressure.
Soon, he is posting ChatGPT responses without even looking at his phone. Unfortunately, Wendy has been sharing serious things with him in texts he hasn’t read. ChatGPT has been responding, and since it is designed to please the person inputting the information, she has been getting very sympathetic messages about her problem, just not from him. He has no idea what she has been sharing, but he can’t let her know.
This is the odd, unspoken reality about ChatGPT: its role must remain hidden for it to work. The illusion of the human element must be preserved, or people are offended.
ChatGPT is a sad illusion of human communication that connects no one, just as modern social media produces an illusion of reasoned argument. Mutual brainless denunciation is not an argument. But given these recent developments, I am tempted to propose that we let ChatGPT produce all our reports, write and respond to most of our emails, and argue with other ChatGPT robots on social media. Thus liberated from foolish wastes of our time, we humans can have lunch together and talk about real things that matter.
Be that as it may, people who want to succeed in the coming AI-infused machine age will need to up their game, especially if they are members of that bloated class of bureaucratic “managers” and “administrators.” They will need to master skills—human skills—that machines can’t. Things like mastering the warmth of human connection; the ability to learn from others and from experience, and to respect traditions of expertise; the wisdom to deal with a host of people, each of whom deserves respect for their intelligence, their hopes, dreams, and goals. AI cannot develop virtues. Humans without them will have little of value to add.
When AI invades, we had better learn to use it well. And using it well will require that we become less “machine-like” and more, not less, human.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I’ve read more that once about large companies producing AI reports that were incorrect, then they have to retract.
I have noticed when googling a specific topic, AI will often show up as the first answer and will often, include its sources, which is helpful in determining whether the source AI has pulled from is reliable and thus the likelihood that the information requested is accurate. There is now often a disclaimer that says AI can make mistakes, which I suppose affirms the fact that even AI recognizes the need for Human Persons to interpret the data to determine its accuracy, because AI, lacking a soul, lacks adequate critical thinking skills.
Going forward, it seems logical to assume, that when using AI, AI should have to provide the sources they pulled from, least AI become guilty of promoting mistakes, erroneous information, such as in cases of defamation and/or libel.
In other words, AI is merely a technical tool used to get information from point A to point B with tremendous speed of processing and computation, but the overall performance of AI still depends on the overall accuracy of the Data that was imputed, and to some extent, the character of the Soul who imputed that Data.
For example:
when God Said let there be Light, God Willed the rules of Phyics into existence Google Search – Google Search
The phenomenon you described is called AI hallucination, which is similar to human hallucinations, where sensory or cognitive function apprehends the non-existent as real.
A Swedish researcher at the University of Gothenburg conjured “Bixonimania” in 2024 to test what happens when you release (obviously imaginary) medical information on the internet and test AI’s use of it. This farcical neologism was implausible to the point of absurdity — “bixo” is a made-up adjective , mania is a psychiatric, not an ophthalmologic term.
By April 13, 2024, Microsoft’s Copilot was declaring that bixonimania was an intriguing and rare condition. On the same day, Google’s Gemini was informing users that bixonimania was caused by excessive blue light exposure and suggesting a ophthalmologist’s care. Later that month, Perplexity AI offered that one in 90,000 individuals were affected . OpenAI’s ChatGPT matched reported user symptoms to this novel disorder.
One in 90,000. AI offered a precise statistic, not a estimate range for a phantom condition. There were numerous attributes that should have induced skepticism. The name was absurd, the papers unprofessional. It was a sudden, emergent condition that defied scientific reason. None of the AI systems prevented dissemination or advised caution. Instead a fraud was accepted and buttressed in an echo chamber. It accepted manufactured statistics. The condition was presented with the air of cutting edge science and no medical caution.
Three researchers at the Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in India published a paper in Cureus, a peer-reviewed journal owned by Springer Nature, the parent publisher of Nature itself that cited the bixonimania preprints as legitimate sources.
This test or hoax, depending on your perspective became a peer-reviewed paper in the Springer Nature journal. It cited a fictional disease as established as a real pathology. It passed the review process and became part of the scientific literature. It was only retracted after the there was publicity.
And yet this should have been an anticipable consequence, since it’s been thirty years since Alan Sokal, the French physicist submitted an impenetrable made-up article
(“Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”) to the cultural studies journal Social Text arguing that physics and mathematics were actually “socially constructed,” which the journal accepted and published.
Winston Churchill once quipped a lie is halfway around the world before the truth puts its pants on. Now, the lies are spreading at the speed of light and the truth is still asleep.
Part of the problem is the use of the term intelligence. The terminology implies cognitive capacities that only humanity possesses on this earth. Our intelligence doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is subject to peer inquiry, dispute, inquiry and correction. It also has a sensory apparatus that sees, smells, touches, tastes and hears. AI can’t answer the question “is this milk sour”, because it cannot taste or smell. It doesn’t feel or see, so it can’t be relied upon answer “is this pot too hot to touch”. We all learn caution through pain. Brag about your hitting and whiff at the plate, you endure ridicule-which we instinctively despise as group rejection. AI has no body, so it won’t endure these lessons, can’t learn them and has no reason to learn them. The lack of caution should scare the hell out of us.
An incapacity to exercise common sense towards AI should concern us most of all, especially since it demonstrates the lack of religious faith among our Catholic leaders when they address this matter, not unsimilar to the credence some give to non-existent space aliens.
It should be self-evident that AI does not exist and never will exist. Yet the established submission to secular trends by most Catholics, attempting to prove a fictional enlightenment, has made space cadets out of men with theological backgrounds.
There is no exercise of thought about anything at all without value judgments. Even a decision to contemplate a stupid idea requires a bad value judgment that decides to waste a portion of one’s lifespan. The very existence of moment to moment moral decision making is why electrical circuits in computers do not and will never do anything that resembles intelligence.
A willingness to believe they can originates in a hidden desire to think about existence in materialist terms, when it is convenient. It is the easiest path to exoneration for the evil we do. My biochemical reflexes forced me to do it. But then our “new religion” Catholicism has been downplaying sin for 60 years. Maybe an “elightened Catholic” can pose the question to AI, does sin still exist?
“It should be self-evident that AI does not exist and never will exist.”
I agree. This is mimicry.
Our intelligence is not founded only in our brain, but our interaction with the environment. Most of us learn (the hard way) what heat is, and it’s power to warm or burn. We learn to avoid or seek it in context and to maintain distance or seek closeness. And yet those lessons, in moderation keep us wary. There is a disease, chronic insensitivity to pain, where victims will burn, lacerate and incur other injuries because they lack the pain reflex-not surprisingly, many die early deaths because pain helps develop caution-it’s God’s way of saying “stop that”. A computer simply can’t interact with the environment that way.
The good news appears than the more powerful AI gets, the greater its appetite for electricity and expensive elements. More and more financial market analysts are concluding this is the MOAB (mother of all bubbles). Quite frankly, I’ve already taken some modest short positions, and you know there’s the next Michael Burry out there who will go all in and wait for the collapse.
“The hard part about playing chicken is knowing when to flinch”
Randall Smith recognizes the effect of a life drawn into AI losing its humanness.
We are effectively dehumanized to the extent that we’re simultaneously withdrawn from human intercourse.
ChatGBT is presaged by Amazon’s Alexa [the night I witnessed my brother in law in a lengthy, fruitless converse with Alex ‘She’ finally saying, Tim, isn’t it time for you to go to bed?] the virtual person with all the answers. As said elsewhere I’ve witnessed nurses consulting Alexa on medications.
ChatGBT was birthed by a conglomerate of techs including Elon Musk. Birthed as in virtual humanness. That’s where the redline between our humanness and Man’s created humanness starts, and where there’s transference from one to the other. And the powerful allure is the payoff in surrendering our human intellect.
Smith gives us some episodes of this transference, the moral obscenity of friends consulting ChatGBT to appear wise students doing the same and actually tolerated by instructors.
The technology has exploded on the scene and apparently not going away. Either we discipline ourselves in managing it as an instrument or we compromise our humanness. Unfortunately, in a competitive environment we likely, at times have to desist from use and accept the consequence for a higher value. The retention of our humanness in God’s image. Faith and its observance obviously in play.
In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate, ppBXVI wrote:
“Technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations toward development.”
Technology thus reflects human values and can reshape how people understand truth, freedom, and even what it means to be human.
Unless man returns to the principle that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, technology risks reducing human dignity to the paganism its creators aspire?
?
How long will it take for humanity to reach a sufficient level of sanity to realize AI doesn’t exist. It can’t even fake it. Advancing software to perform more complex search algorithms is never subject to and can never be subject to a value judgment of utility. It is impossible for software and silicon to have any idea what it is doing, nor any memory of what it just did. This is why traditional search engines were not designed to try. Of course, sooner or later restless, Godless humanity imposes its vanity on fantasy revolutions, including the anthropomorphic, trying to prove ascendency to received wisdom of our limitations.
But at least the falsified results can be amusing for their absurdities.
Randall B. Smith’s analysis does not merely outline the technical boundaries of artificial intelligence; it exposes a more radical crisis: the mutation of human rationality itself.
The distinction between algorithmic processing and embodied, tacit knowledge—so clearly illustrated by the author—is crucial. Yet the ultimate peril is not that machines will successfully simulate human consciousness, but that human beings will progressively adapt themselves to the binary logic of the machine.
Smith’s critique of modern bureaucracy strikes precisely this point. The real danger is not the sudden arrival of artificial general intelligence, but the prior and largely voluntary transformation of human institutions into purely procedural systems, in which the moral weight of judgment is replaced by automated conformity to impersonal rules.
At this point a convergence with Augusto Del Noce’s philosophical diagnosis becomes apparent. Del Noce argued that the historical failure of Marxism did not lead to a recovery of transcendence, but to the triumph of technicism: a form of rationality entirely reduced to technique without truth. In this horizon, reason is no longer ordered to being, but to efficiency.
What emerges is a kind of functionalist nihilism. Truth and goodness are progressively detached from operative processes: what matters is no longer whether something is true or good, but whether it functions. This is the first face of late modernity: technocratic governance as systemic management.
Yet this logic finds its counterpart in what appears to be its opposite: radical individualism. Technocratic governance and expressive autonomy present themselves as adversaries, but they share a common anthropology. Both interpret human finitude—not as a mystery to be received or a freedom wounded by sin, but as a technical problem to be solved.
So, transhumanism and unrestricted self-determination represent two expressions of the same logic: the attempt to construct a form of redemption without a Redeemer.
John Lennox has repeatedly noted that while science can describe mechanisms, it cannot account for meaning, nor for the nature of human judgment. The error lies in elevating procedural efficiency into the ultimate criterion of truth, and thereby implicitly reducing the human person to what is computable.
As Smith shows through his examples of AI-generated writing, when cultural and aesthetic standards become detached from reality, we gradually lose the ability to distinguish between authentic human expression and its synthetic imitation.
The true alternative to this procedural reduction lies in the recovery of the creaturely condition of the human person. Human beings are neither the accidental outcome of a cosmic algorithm nor the self-creating architects of their own essence. We receive our being before we construct our destiny.
This ontological priority grounds what Cardinal Ruini — who passed away just days ago on June 16, 2026 – has described as the necessity of a genuine cultural project: not a moralistic programme imposed from above, but a living presence of faith that precedes and generates culture itself. Dignity precedes self-design; the person is given before it is a project.
Smith’s final observation about the “inhumanity of human systems” is therefore decisive. If we are to inhabit the technological age without being absorbed by it, the deeper task is not merely to regulate machines, but to resist becoming machine-like ourselves.
The problem is not that silicon is becoming too human, but that human beings are quietly consenting to become well-programmed carbon.
“So, transhumanism and unrestricted self-determination represent two expressions of the same logic: the attempt to construct a form of redemption without a Redeemer.”
Ok, where is the redeemer? “he’s invisible” or “trust me bro” isn’t good enough. Just because you’ve convinced yourself there is an afterlife, doesn’t mean the rest of us have.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you very much for your question.
My point was not to ask anyone to accept the existence of a Redeemer simply on authority. Rather, it was to note that human beings seem incapable of living without some idea of redemption.
The question is not whether we seek salvation, but where we seek it.
Historically, religions located redemption in God. Modern secular ideologies often relocated it into politics, economics, science, or technology. Marxism promised liberation through revolution. Today, many transhumanists promise liberation through biotechnology, AI, or radical life extension.
In each case, the underlying structure remains remarkably similar: there is a perceived human defect, an anticipated future transformation, and a hoped-for deliverance from suffering, limitation, or death.
When I wrote of “redemption without a Redeemer,” I meant precisely this: the attempt to obtain the fruits traditionally associated with salvation—knowledge, freedom, happiness, even immortality—while excluding any transcendent source.
Whether Christianity is true is, of course, a further question. But even those who reject Christianity should recognize that modern technological culture often inherits religious aspirations while denying their religious foundations.
The real debate, then, is not between believers and people who seek redemption. It is between competing visions of what redemption is, and whether technology alone can provide it.
As John Lennox often argues, science is extraordinarily powerful at explaining mechanisms, but it cannot account for meaning, nor for the nature of human judgment. The deeper question is whether mechanisms alone can explain meaning, morality, consciousness, and the human longing for transcendence. If we elevate procedural efficiency into the ultimate criterion of truth, we risk reducing the human person to what is computable. That is where the discussion truly begins.
The Question is “Are we making the world better for the next generation”?
To AI “Please answer.”
The down-to-earth aspects of dealing with the new tech, are still not addressed with any realism. I don’t mean to be overly critical of Smith’s installment on tech fascinations.
There is a marketing drive to get everyone and everything online. The plan is to multiply charges later all the way down to end users.
Digitized picture-taking is rampant as if anyone may own your image. These pictures once in the tech are either deliberately shared or surreptitiously lifted; all go back to Israel (at least “in the west”). No law is passed to stop taking your picture. Specialized cameras are doing this, look for them and you’ll distinguish better what is going on in terms of the who’s who.
Most of the folks involved in that live a double life: they never speak up as they should or if they do it is after the fact and in “innocent” tones.
Putting stuff online them makes it subject to two things: a) as available to the tech and b) as in reach to the tech operators who are largely unaccountable to users and data owners and deliberately kept removed from them in legal and physical/identification senses.
Item a) is a total riot present and future. One example is copyright. You digitize your book now and in 70 years or so the owner of the database can replicate your book for its profit without royalty.
Item b) is a complex of tech agency relationships under the management of select conglomerate monopolies that are out of reach legally speaking of those to whom most of the vast data belong. Like the digitized pictures.
Privity of contract separates them, inter alia. But also plain out ignorance of who they are. And also that they are always changing whether fly-by-night or profit-taking among themselves, etc., while under the umbrella of the conglomerate monopolies.
What also separates them is changing “terms of usage” and “terms of usage” that unilaterally impose terms, all done with notice no-one can discern -or without notice. These are all things that are abhorrent in the eyes of law, by their nature. But there they are.
They are further separated by Governments that intervene to act on behalf of those who are considered to have had their rights infringed. These forms of actions keep the structures alienated from connecting the different parts in law.
All data can be manipulated without it being traceable that it got appropriated for manipulation –or manipulated.
In most jurisdiction documents are legally binding on the face and this means that something has to take precedence when stamped paper and “stamped electronic” differ. It will be the one that was relied on at the point in time by those who relied on it.
The private kind of crypto currency could be inflated and raided; and repeatedly so; and nobody would know a thing. The same scenario could unfold in some State owned cryptos.
No law is passed to at least make notifications obligatory, of such things. It is a creeping method deliberately implemented in a creeping fashion OUTSIDE THE LAW. Like AIPAC.
In the midst of it they are pushing to militarize the tech/databases as if “Oh hey isn’t this the most normal thing to do.”
The “red teams” business suggests to me that AI is not meant to operate strictly independently and will be opportunistically people-directed /people-interacted in real time.
The “emphasized” part of this news story, however, is that Mythos and Fable “totally penetrated” NSA.
Anthropic had been blacklisted yet somehow here they are showing off penetration skills following which their “tool” said not to be militarized (!) ended up “disappearing”.
Whadda you know!
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/us-intelligence-security-agency-loses-access-to-anthropic-ai-amid-government-dispute-14025662.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/us/politics/nsa-lost-access-anthropic-tool.html
On the Declaration’s Anniversary:
Hegseth is pushing to militarize AI while declaring “Bring on the Apocalypse in the Name of Jesus!”
and
Trump partners the US with Israel as a matter of “national security” to reassert “US hegemony” – “importance”? – throughout whole world.
According to President Trump, “Like nobody saw before ever in the history of ….. “.
A plan for containing AI -perhaps?
Making things up as they go along maybe?
Anthropic people have their own way of speaking. More issues now emerge with its Claude AI. Recall that a major portion of Claude Code got leaked earlier this year after the fight up between Anthropic and Hegseth. It gives an angle on the title above “AL Humans and Limits” in terms of real life behaviours political and social.
Something I always found curious, when MSN email is shut off there appears an interim page recommending that ALL browsers should be closed. It suggests a basic state of affairs in electronics that when a portal (like an email) is open there is always some level of connectivity that allows looping and linking even to bypass password; and this remains sort of floating in the cyber-space and allowing continued access after the portal gets shuts. Someone or a program or bot or virus or pre-script (or even ADOBE or “ho setup” and HP printers?) can get to it opportunistically.
Hence Anthropic lately dialoguing coyly about the “J-space” (?).
https://www.rt.com/news/642687-claude-ai-thinking-space-anthropic/
https://www.rt.com/news/642791-china-security-risk-anthropic/
Edit: hp setup – not “ho”