Sci-Fi's Mythical Agent of Salvation

 The most optimistic science fiction writers imagined a future in which robots would be developed with guardrails to guarantee human safety and well-being. To them, it was unimaginable that the engineers and architects of robotic technology could fail to appreciate such a fundamental risk.*

The hope that artificial intelligence might transcend the frailties of human nature has proven misguided. Much like a perpetual motion machine, the idea of saintly, altruistic AI agents—created by morally imperfect human engineers—guiding us into a bright future is pure fantasy.

I can only hope that warnings of AI causing human destruction turn out to be self-preventing prophecies. Artificial intelligence will not save us, nor will alien entities from other worlds. We must police ourselves, electing governments that protect our best interests and actively upholding human rights and values on our own.

To rely on technology to act as our ethical compass is to misunderstand the very nature of human progress. Throughout history, every major leap in capability—from metallurgy to industrialization—has served as a double-edged sword, magnifying both our capacity for creation and our potential for self-destruction. Artificial intelligence is no different; it is merely a mirror reflecting our own incentives, biases, and systemic failures. When an autonomous system makes a decision that marginalizes a group or prioritizes profit over human dignity, it is not exhibiting a flaw in synthetic logic, but executing the exact priorities coded into it by a flawed socio-economic framework.

Ultimately, the responsibility for navigating this threshold rests squarely on democratic accountability and public engagement. If we surrender governance to technological determinism—accepting corporate algorithms as inevitable law—we abdicate the hard work of democracy. Ensuring that technology serves humanity requires rigorous public policy, international cooperation, and a culture that demands ethical accountability from tech architects. The future will not be saved by automated benevolence, but by citizens actively fighting for laws that preserve individual liberty and the common good against unrestrained power.

*In his novel I Robot, Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics dictate that a robot must never harm a human (or allow a human to come to harm), must obey all human orders unless they conflict with the First Law, and must protect its own existence as long as doing so does not violate the First or Second Law.

Six Historical Myths Debunked

 

Art created with Gemini and modified with Photoshop by O.J.

Here is the list of 6 historical myths: 

1. People Were Burned at the Stake During the Salem Witch Trials

• The Reality: None of the 20 people convicted during the 1692–1693 Salem hearings were burned. Nineteen were hanged, five died in prison, and one man was pressed to death with stones. The myth stems from European witch trials, where burning was used to purify convicts and deter conspiracies. In Salem, hanging was used as punishment.
  
  

2. Cleopatra Was Egyptian

• The Reality: Although she was born in Egypt and ruled as its last pharaoh, Cleopatra was ethnically Macedonian Greek, descended from one of Alexander the Great's generals (Ptolemy I Soter). However, she was the first in her line to learn the Egyptian language and actively adopted her subjects' customs.
  
  

3. Marie Antoinette Said "Let Them Eat Cake"

• The Reality: Marie Antoinette never spoke this famous quote ("qu'ils mangent de la brioche"). The line appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s autobiographical Confessions, written in 1765 when Marie Antoinette was still a child living in Austria. Her actual recorded last words were to her executioner after stepping on his foot: "Pardon me, sir, I did not do it on purpose."
  
  

4. Napoleon Was Short

• The Reality: Napoleon Bonaparte was average height for his era—roughly 5 feet, 6 inches or 5 feet, 7 inches. The misconception stems from his nickname "Le Petit Caporal" (an affectionate term used by his troops, not a literal description) and a mismatch in measurements: a 19th-century French inch was longer than the standard English inch, causing a miscalculation of his height as 5 feet, 2 inches.
  
  

5. The Library of Alexandria Burned Down in a Single Fire

• The Reality: The library was not destroyed in one catastrophic conflagration that erased ancient wisdom overnight. Instead, the collection and its institution slowly dwindled over several centuries through neglect, political shifts, and partial damages attributed to figures like Julius Caesar and Theophilus I of Alexandria.
  
  

6. Albert Einstein Failed Math

• The Reality: Einstein was exceptionally talented at mathematics from an early age. When shown a Ripley's Believe It or Not! claim in 1935 that he had failed math, Einstein personally debunked it, stating, "Before I was 15 I had mastered differential and integral calculus."

Source

Pulling aside the Curtain on AI Creation

This is one of the most relevant interviews about AI that I've heard in a long time. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson, co-host Negin Farsad, and guest Jaron Lanier discuss Lanier’s provocative idea that “there is no AI” as an independent entity. Lanier argues that AI should be understood as a massive collaboration of people, built from human data, and that seeing it this way helps explain AI safety, creativity, labor, black-box problems, and the danger of replacing human value with machine mythology.

Summary:

In this discussion, he aims to replace the "mystical" idea of AI as a god-like, autonomous entity with the reality of it being a massive human collaboration (0:24-0:43).

Here is a simple summary of why he wants to pull back that curtain:

People-Powered Technology: Lanier argues that AI is not an independent "being." Instead, it is built entirely from the data, labor, and creativity of real people. By viewing it this way, we stop treating the machine as an infallible authority (5:31-6:02).

Practical Problem Solving: He believes that by acknowledging AI as a product of human data rather than a "black box," we can better understand how to fix its flaws, like hallucinations or dangerous outputs, by looking at the specific human input that created them (5:51-6:13).

Protecting Human Value: He worries that if we continue to worship AI as a new entity, we risk making people feel obsolete or worthless. He suggests that if we recognize the human element, we can focus on using AI as a tool to **enhance human creativity** rather than replacing it (6:30-7:55).

In essence, Lanier wants to shift the narrative from fearing a "new machine god" to valuing the human network that actually powers our digital future.

Caillebotte: Impressionist Painter & Patron

 

https://www.tumblr.com/tigrikorn/788366238064820224/the-painter-and-the-rower-gustave-caillebotte

Caillebotte had something most of the Impressionists didn’t:

Money.

That gave him a very different role in the movement.

Monet. Renoir. Degas. Pissarro. Manet.

He bought their paintings when few collectors wanted them. He paid for exhibitions.

And when tensions threatened… pic.twitter.com/E0uuLamr4S

— Impressions (@impression_ists) August 29, 2026

Leave a comment with your favorite detail from this post—and what it made you feel. I’ll read and respond to each one.

THOUGHTS ON THE SUPERGIRL' MOVIE:

Detail imagery from the Supergirl collectible popcorn tin.

In general, I was entertained watching Supergirl.

Visual effects were well done and the story progressed without much distraction/stalling for the most Part.

Certain aspects of the film sat uneasily for me however. Mostly, these were in the final battle.

I felt that the bad guys would have realized at a certain point that then were outmatched and would have retreated to save their hides.

There were other instances that derailed my suspension of disbelief during the movie. Much of the time, they occurred during the final fight scene.

Ruthie's grip strength dring an extended period of time that she hung at the end of a broken cable under the brigands' air ship for example.

I kept up my optimism for the move throughout my theater experience. It’s a relatively fun movie as I look back on it. As I assess my feelings in retrospect I felt it was similar to watching a classic revenge Western like Clint Eastwood’s The Outlaw Joses Wales.  I compare Superhero movies with Western films in more detail here.

But I like this review that takes it time to examine the film with all its flaws and still give it the credit it deserves:

In any case, I'd like to mention that the Supergirl Collectible popcorn tin which my daughters bought far me as a belated Father's Day gift (along with going with me to the movie) is top-notch. See my detailed photos of it below. 

What was your take on the Supergirl movie? Drop your thoughts below—I’ll read and respond to your comment.