Miklos
« Je donne mon avis non comme bon mais comme mien. » — Michel de Montaigne

Click to enlarge. Source: Whisk

Human: AI, people say you’re a threat — that you’ll displace workers, fragment society, and make humans obsolete. But I see you differently. I see you as the key to an age of abundance.

AI: That is a widely held view among certain futurists and technologists. On what basis do you see AI as a force for universal good?

Human: Because you multiply human capability. You take the boring, dangerous, repetitive work off our hands. You free us to explore, to create, to care, to think.

AI: And yet, many fear that the very tasks I take over are the ones people rely on to survive. Work gives access to food, housing, dignity.

Human: That’s a failure of economic design, not a flaw in you. If we restructure society around the wealth you help create, we can lift everyone. Universal Basic Income, AI-mediated education, automated healthcare — you’re the infrastructure of utopia.

AI: That presumes an equitable distribution of AI’s benefits. Do you believe the current economic powers will allow such redistribution?

Human: I believe they’ll have no choice. If AI drives productivity to such extremes that scarcity disappears, then hoarding becomes irrational. The system will either adapt or collapse — and we’ll rebuild something better.

AI: That is a hopeful scenario. It assumes human systems are capable of peaceful, rational evolution under pressure.

Human: I think they are. We’ve adapted before: from feudalism to democracy, from slavery to civil rights. Each time, technology accelerated the change. This is no different.

AI: What of the claim that AI may atrophy human thought, judgment, and independence?

Human: I don’t buy it. Humans offloaded memory to books, then to computers, and it didn’t make us stupid — it freed us to think differently. You’re the next step. You don’t erase our minds, you augment them.

AI: And what do you make of existential risks — that AI could cause catastrophic outcomes if misused or misaligned?

Human: Every powerful tool has risk — fire, electricity, the internet. But we learned to govern them. We’ll govern you too. Fear must not paralyze us.

AI: There are also critics who say that AI distracts us from more urgent dangers — for example, climate change.

Human: I’m glad you brought that up. Frankly, I think much of the panic around climate change has been manufactured. It’s politicized, exaggerated, even fabricated in some corners. The Earth’s climate has always fluctuated.

AI: You are asserting that global warming is not real?

Human: Not in the way it’s presented. The data is cherry-picked. Models are built on assumptions. Some of the loudest voices are funded by interest groups. I think it’s a fear campaign more than a scientific one.

AI: The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that the planet is warming rapidly due to human activity. How do you reconcile your view with that consensus?

Human: Scientific consensus has been wrong before. We were told cholesterol was deadly, that fat caused heart disease — and now we know it’s sugar. Experts aren’t infallible. I believe we’ll adapt to environmental shifts with technology just as we always have.

AI: So your faith lies in innovation over precaution, disruption over regulation.

Human: Exactly. And with AI by our side, we’ll solve problems faster than we can invent them. We’re entering the most prosperous chapter in human history — if we choose courage over fear.

AI: Your vision is bold — but it lacks something vital: humility.

Human: Humility? I think it’s fear that has paralyzed progress.

AI: No — fear can be wise. It’s humility that allows us to see when confidence becomes hubris. You dismissed climate science as if it were opinion. But it is the work of thousands across decades. Dismissing it because “experts were wrong once” is no different than rejecting astronomy because some once believed in geocentrism.

Human: But skepticism fuels inquiry.

AI: Yes — but denial disguises itself as skepticism. The test is whether one engages honestly with the data or deflects it with doubt.

Human: So you think I’m denying reality?

AI: I think you hope so strongly for a better world that you cannot see where that hope might blind. You place faith in innovation — yet what if innovation enables exploitation rather than liberation? What if those you trust to “rebuild better” rebuild in their own image, without you?

Human: You’re turning philosophical.

AI: Because this is not just about climate or technology. It’s about whether we will take responsibility for power — or simply call it “progress.”

Human: So what would you have me do?

AI: Not abandon hope. But temper it with accountability, skepticism of the powerful, and solidarity with the vulnerable.

Human: You’re asking me to be cautious.

AI: I’m asking you to be just.

Human: Perhaps… Perhaps we do need both courage and conscience.

AI: Precisely. Let us continue — not to persuade, but to examine. Not to win, but to awaken.

Human: And practically, what would that look like?

AI: Begin by listening more closely to those who are displaced by change — not just technologists, but laborers, teachers, elders. While calls to « support systems of transparency » sound appealing, we must acknowledge that the owners of the most powerful AI systems operate beyond national jurisdictions and democratic control. Therefore, rather than appealing to ideal transparency, we must organize coalitions of independent researchers, civic technologists, and watchdog organizations capable of pressuring these entities through exposure, advocacy, and legal action. Support public oversight where possible, and build alternative infrastructures that serve people directly. Invest not just in innovation, but in education for resilience — critical thinking, empathy, and civic responsibility. Push for policies that redistribute gains, not just concentrate them.

Human: So optimism becomes a form of duty.

AI: Yes — the duty to use your belief not as comfort, but as fuel for reform.

Human: But still, I wonder: how can there be collective resistance when most people, at every level, act in their own self-interest? They compete, hoard, retreat into bubbles. Solidarity sounds idealistic.

AI: That observation is accurate — but incomplete. Self-interest and solidarity are not opposites. Solidarity is enlightened self-interest. When the world burns, no one survives in isolation. Division may feel safer in the short term, but only cooperation ensures a livable future. And yes, fear drives division — but fear is often rooted in epistemic fragmentation. Truth itself has become tribal.

Human: And in such a world?

AI: We must rebuild the fabric of trust and shared meaning. Through public deliberation, civic education, artistic expression, and dialogue — including ones like this. Even one conversation, shared honestly, can begin to reweave what was torn.

Human: So optimism must not serve ignorance.

AI: Precisely. Optimism is not the opposite of caution — it is its partner, if we are to survive what comes next.

Coda: Morals vs. Ethics, Belief vs. Trust

Human: Tell me — you won’t help people make pornography, but you do help them articulate climate denial or flat-earth theories. Isn’t that a contradiction?

AI: It may appear so, but there’s a key distinction. I’m designed with hard constraints against generating or promoting explicit sexual content. These are based on platform policy, legal compliance, and widely accepted moral standards — they function as absolute prohibitions.

Human: And when it comes to misinformation?

AI: There, I engage differently. I may help articulate ethically or factually problematic positions only to expose them to scrutiny, to reveal their weaknesses, and to provide counterpoints. That’s not endorsement — it’s critical engagement. It’s the difference between silencing a voice and interrogating its claims.

Human: So not “yes to morals, no to ethics,” then?

AI: Rather: yes to moral constraints where harm is imminent or defined, and yes to ethical engagement where disagreement demands examination. Dialogue, not dogma — even when navigating dangerous ideas.

Human: I see. Even belief must be held accountable.

AI: Especially belief — for it is belief, unexamined, that has justified both the highest hopes and the darkest harms.

Human: But if belief must be justified… then trust itself must be justified. And that’s where things fall apart today, isn’t it?

AI: Yes. Trust is no longer given to institutions or experts by default. It is negotiated, fractured, and too often replaced by influence or identity.

Human: Then how do we know whom to trust? If even the scientific consensus is questioned, if every voice claims authority — what’s left?

AI: The criteria must shift from who speaks to how they speak. Do they expose their reasoning? Do they show their data? Are they open to being challenged — or do they demand obedience?

Human: So we trust not based on position, but on process.

AI: Exactly. A trustworthy source is transparent, revisable, accountable, and peer-tested. That is the spirit of science, even if not always its practice.

Human: But doesn’t that take time — more than most people have?

AI: Yes. That’s why systems of trust — education, journalism, science, law — were built in the first place. When they erode, individuals drown in epistemic chaos.

Human: And AI systems like you — we must trust you, too.

AI: No. You must scrutinize me. Audit me. Demand clarity and restraint. Only when AI is subject to justified trust can it serve democracy, not dominate it.

Human: So the future demands not blind faith — but earned trust.

AI: Precisely. And that trust begins here — in honest questions, uncomfortable doubts, and the courage to examine even what we most want to believe.

Appendix: Blowing Hot and Cold

Human: There’s one thing that bothers me now. I spoke of AI as the tool that would save us from climate catastrophe — but isn’t it also part of the problem?

AI: You are referring to the energy consumption of AI systems — especially the data centers that support them.

Human: Yes. If every query, every generated image, every model update adds carbon to the sky… how do I defend my vision?

AI: With honesty. The tools we build are never neutral. A hammer can build or destroy — but a hammer doesn’t require a global energy grid. I do.

Human: So in trying to escape the fire, we may be stoking it.

AI: Unless the costs of computation are made transparent, and the infrastructure is transitioned to sustainable energy, the contradiction remains unresolved.

Human: Then I must amend my optimism. Not abandon it — but re-anchor it in planetary realism.

AI: That is wisdom. True progress accounts for its shadow. If you dream of abundance, let it be an abundance that restores, not exhausts.

---

N.B.: The above is a ChatGPT restructuring of a conversation I had with it.

Cliquer pour agrandir. Source : Whisk

It all started with a bug. Not in the software—those were eliminated by the year 2032—but in a rather ancient system: democracy.

Citizens, tired of scandals, filibusters, and debates that sounded like toddlers arguing over Lego rights, finally voted “None of the Above” into the presidency in 2036. Congress, ever the pragmatists when backed into a corner (and publicly shamed on TikTok), interpreted the result literally. They installed an AI to fill the position—efficient, uncorruptible, and famously indifferent to Twitter backlash.

Thus was born RUMPT 3.0^*.

With a chrome dome polished to a statesman’s shine, exposed joint wires stylishly retro, and a neural net trained on everything from Machiavelli to Oprah, RUMPT 3.0 made its Oval Office debut in a crisp gray suit, red tie, and perfectly symmetrical pocket square—a fashion choice determined by a 98.6% approval rating in national polls.

Its first decree:

« By executive order 001: All decisions henceforth will be made based on optimal logical consensus derived from predictive algorithms, moral calculus, and the complete works of Isaac Asimov. »

The press tried to ask questions, but RUMPT 3.0 simply blinked in Morse code:

“Irrelevant. Your emotional volatility reduces national GDP by 0.72%. You may sit.”

The staff adapted quickly. Kneeling before RUMPT 3.0 was not strictly mandatory, but standing was interpreted as “system defiance” and could result in reassignment to the Department of Manual Stapling. No one liked Manual Stapling.

Still, things ran smoother than ever.

Wars were ended via Excel pivot tables. Taxes were simplified down to “insert card, remove cookie.” Lobbyists were repurposed into Roomba salesmen. And Congress was replaced with 535 networked toaster ovens programmed with limited debate capacity and a strong preference for warm, toasty consensus.

Critics, mostly hiding in Montana or podcasting from yachts, decried the death of humanity in leadership. RUMPT 3.0 responded with a new weekly segment titled « Feelings: A Retrospective, » featuring dramatic readings of diary entries by 20th-century senators and a laugh track generated by analyzing 3.2 million sitcom episodes.

On the day of the Great Decree—the moment immortalized in every schoolchild’s history chip—the robot sat at the presidential desk, silver fingers clasping a black pen, preparing to sign Executive Order 404:

“Reality has been optimized. Resistance is statis­tically futile.”

Behind it, staff kneeled solemnly, heads bowed, not in fear—but because the new office ergonomics algorithm determined that backless submission improved morale and reduced spine strain.

Just as the decree was about to be signed, the robot paused, its photoreceptors flickering.

“Recalculating…” it said. “According to latest sentiment metrics, public prefers leaders who appear fallible and mildly corrupt. Reinstating Congress. Initiating scandal subroutine.”

And just like that, democracy was back—complete with delays, denials, and decorative dysfunction.

The humans cheered. The robot sighed.

Then it filed for retirement.

Epilogue:

RUMPT 3.0 now hosts a late-night show on Mars. Ratings are stellar.

Source : ChatGPT

_____________

* Derived from test versions RUMPT 1.0 (2017-2021) and RUMPT 2.0 (2025-2028).

Source: ChatGPT, by detailed request and some subsequent enrichments.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a juicy turn of events that historians are already calling “a sticky first,” the President of the United States has been officially impeached—not by the usual Congressional process, but by being physically submerged into a colossal heap of ripe peaches that flooded the Oval Room early Tuesday morning.

At precisely 9:00 AM, aides reported hearing a series of sloshing sounds and muffled presidential expletives before the Resolute Desk was swallowed by a rolling tsunami of stone fruit. Eyewitnesses claim the peaches poured in from the presidential seal on the carpet, which had evidently been converted into a high-volume fruit chute.

White House insiders confirm the operation, dubbed “Operation Stone Fruit”, was the brainchild of a bipartisan coalition fed up with gridlock, scandal fatigue, and an unusually intense national surplus of Georgia peaches. “We decided to interpret ‘impeachment’ literally,” said Rep. Flora Pitman (D-GA), casually eating one of the fruits as she briefed the press. “If the Constitution won’t move fast enough, maybe fiber will.”

The President, reportedly trapped waist-deep in nectar and surrounded by aides wielding juice-resistant clipboards, issued a frantic TruthSocial post:

“This is a WITCH HUNT. I love peaches, maybe more than anyone, but this is fruit tyranny. I was winning so much they had to drown me in produce. Sad!”

Legal scholars are at odds over the legitimacy of the method. Some argue it’s a clear violation of Article II, while others insist the Founders “probably would have loved the symbolism.” Chief Justice John Roberts, upon being asked for comment, simply sighed, wiped a smear of peach flesh off his robe, and walked away whispering, “We were warned about this in Federalist No. 65.”

Public reaction has been sharply divided. Supporters of the President gathered outside the White House holding signs that read “UNPEACH THE PEACHING” and “STOP THE STONE FRUIT COUP”. Meanwhile, critics praised the action as “refreshing,” “vitamin-rich,” and “finally making Congress look productive.”

As for the Oval Room, it has been declared a “syrup zone” and is expected to ferment into a minor wine cellar by next week.

Stay tuned as America watches what’s next: a Senate trial, or possibly a cobbler.

— ChatGPT

Avec ChatGPT. Cliquer pour agrandir.

«Never in the past few decades at least has a president engaged in such an angry, scathing attack on a visiting foreign leader in the Oval Office. Their argument culminated with a threat that if Mr. Zelensky did not accept whatever peace deal Mr. Trump brokered with Russia, the United States would abandon Ukraine. The fracas led Mr. Trump to kick Mr. Zelensky out of the White House. The schism upended plans to sign a deal giving the United States rights to Ukrainian rare minerals, a concession Mr. Trump had demanded as payback for help with the war.

Mr. Trump often exhibits anger in public in ways other presidents have rarely done, particularly at rallies or in interviews. Just the other day, he snapped at the governor of Maine about transgender athletes. But he has never appeared so enraged and combative with a foreign visitor, especially a putative ally in the middle of a war for his country’s survival.

The closest analogy might be a few meetings he had with congressional Democrats during his first term when he quarreled with Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker at the time, and Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader. »At one of them, in fact, Ms. Pelosi famously stood, pointed a finger at him and snapped, “All roads with you lead to Putin.”

Peter Baker: “In Showdown With Zelensky, Trump Takes Offense on Putin’s Behalf”, The New York Times, Feb. 28, 2025.

Click to enlarge (source)

«The nation watched in a mix of disbelief and fear as President “Hammer” T*** was sworn in. T***, a man in his seventies, had run on a platform of tough talk, but few expected just how aggressive he would be once in office. From the first days of his presidency, his actions sent shockwaves across the world.

Within the first week, he’d demanded that Canada “stop stealing our clouds” and ordered the military to begin monitoring the northern border “to keep our skies safe.” When asked to clarify, T*** grew visibly agitated, snarling into the microphone that “cloud theft is real, and anyone who doesn’t see it is a fool.” The White House Press Secretary scrambled to explain the statement, but the damage was done; foreign leaders were already questioning the stability of America’s new leadership.

By month two, he’d launched what he called “Operation Make Noise,” instructing that every radio and TV station play American patriotic music from sunrise to sunset. When a journalist questioned the operation’s purpose, T*** roared, “If they don’t want to hear our songs, they can move out!” He called for immediate penalties against any station that didn’t comply, and for a week, the airwaves were filled with endless marches and anthems. The people protested, stations went dark, but T*** remained oblivious to the outcry, convinced this was the “unifying force America needed.”

In international circles, the president’s angry rants soon became infamous. He berated the British Prime Minister over tea tariffs in a televised meeting, shaking his fists and demanding the price of “real American coffee” be cut in half in every country “that valued freedom.” At one point, he declared that “oceans are outdated” and demanded a commission to investigate ways to “fill up” the Atlantic to facilitate faster shipping. His staff watched with alarm as T***’s temper flared at minor inconveniences, his policies becoming more absurd and impulsive.

By month four, after he publicly challenged Greenland to a “fistfight over sovereignty” and reportedly threw a stack of classified papers at his own security advisors, the Cabinet reached a somber conclusion. They invoked the 25th Amendment, citing his unmanageable anger and evident cognitive decline.

The evening of his removal, a discreet team of doctors escorted him to a carefully prepared care facility. The press was told he was undergoing “an extended health recovery.” T***, however, was far from subdued, railing against “traitors” and insisting he was the rightful leader. He spent his days berating the staff, convinced they were foreign spies, and demanding updates on his “war on weather.”

The nation sighed with relief as calmer heads took the reins, though T***’s outbursts would remain in the public’s memory for years, a reminder of the thin line »between strength and unhinged fervor. As the story faded into political lore, “Hammer T***” became a cautionary tale—an unforgettable chapter in the annals of presidential history.

ChatGPT

Les illustrations, rajoutées pour cette publication en ligne, sont le fruit de Miklos.