Mother-daughter farmers reject eye-popping Big Tech bids: 'I'll stay ... and feed a nation'



A mother and daughter from Kentucky have a simple message for artificial intelligence companies: Go away.

Ida Huddleston and her daughter Delsia Bare say their land has fed the United States for generations, and that isn't going to change.

'I'll stay and hold and feed a nation.'

The quiet family are making headlines over their farmland, which they say has been in their family since the 1860s, after anonymous bidders have made plays to scoop up their property to erect a sprawling data center.

According to Bare, the potential buyers "will not reveal who they are," telling local Lexington, Kentucky, outlet WLEX that the anonymity of the offer is a huge red flag to her.

The family have been offered $60,000 per acre for Huddleston's 71 acres and $48,000 per acre for Bare's 463-acre portion. This puts the total offer at roughly $26 million. WKRC says this is approximately 10 times the going rate for farmland in the area.

Huddleston said she has rejected multiple offers and that she's not budging.

"What they've proposed and have carried on with us is not a business deal; it's mind harassment," the 82-year-old told WLEX.

"I said I don't want your money; I don't need your money. But I do feel sorry for everybody around us that they're going to be affected by it."

RELATED: Sam Altman tells BlackRock he wants AI on a meter 'like electricity or water'

The economic development director for surrounding Maysville-Mason County previously told WLEX that the potential data center would create 400 full-time positions and over 1,500 construction jobs.

"As far as jobs would go, they would become, if not our largest employer, definitely top three," director Tyler McHugh said.

However, Huddleston disputed the number of potential permanent jobs, saying, "My guess is you won't have over 50, and they won't even be there at this building when it's said and done."

The narrative surrounding the family's lineage has remained very consistent throughout news reports, as have Bare's reasons for refusing to sell.

"I'll stay and hold and feed a nation," she told WKRC. She added that for generations her family has "paid taxes on it, fed a nation off of it, even raised wheat through the Depression and kept the breadlines up in the United States of America."

RELATED: Data centers are a hidden tax on your burger

Data center in Louisville, Kentucky. Tom Uhlman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Much of the sentiment was the same for Huddleston, who said she recognizes a sinister pattern.

"They call us old, stupid farmers, you know, but we're not. We know whenever our food is disappearing, our lands are disappearing, and we don't have any water. And poison: We know we've had it."

Her message to those who claim it will bring jobs: "I say they're a liar and the truth ain't in them. ... It's a scam!"

WLEX had previously reported on a different family who turned down offers of nearly $8 million for their land. In December, Andy Grosser and his father, Timothy, said they were also approached about selling their cattle farm to make way for a data center.

"We do not want to sell," Grosser said. "The farm is my dad's, and it means everything to him."

As for Bare, she compared her love for her land to Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind:"

"As long as I'm on this land — as long as it's feeding me, as long as it's taking care of me — there's nothing that can destroy me if I've got this land."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The new censorship doesn’t say ‘no’ — it says ‘no one can see it’



Free speech isn’t dying in one dramatic moment. It’s getting shaved down in two different ways — both deliberate, both dangerous.

The first track is blunt-force censorship. It looks like platform bans, coordinated deplatforming, demonetization — and in some countries, handcuffs.

The First Amendment requires vigilance — and a culture and an infrastructure that respect not only the right to speak, but the ability to be heard without invisible manipulation.

When Joe Rogan reacted to reports that more than 12,000 people in the United Kingdom had been arrested over social media posts, he said the U.K. has “lost it.” Hyperbolic? Maybe. But the concern is real. Americans still recoil at the idea of police knocking on someone’s door over a tweet. In parts of Europe, that line keeps moving.

Take the arrest of Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan over posts criticizing trans activists. Agree with him or not, the point stands: Government shouldn’t referee online speech disputes. Speech that would receive constitutional protection in the United States is treated elsewhere as a criminal offense. That isn’t progress. It’s just regression dressed up as “social responsibility.”

We aren’t immune in the United States. We just do it differently.

The First Amendment still blocks direct government suppression in most cases. But a parallel system has grown up alongside it — one where Big Tech companies act as speech gatekeepers. They decide who can speak, who gets heard, and who disappears into digital exile. You may have the right to talk, but if you can’t reach anyone in the modern public square, what does that right mean?

That’s the predictable result of handing global communication infrastructure to a handful of corporations with opaque rules and shifting political winds. Platforms remove accounts, throttle content, suspend monetization, and slap “misinformation” labels on disfavored opinions. The rules move, enforcement varies, and appeals are a black box.

Jeff Dornik, founder of Pickax, a fast-growing platform branding itself as a free-speech alternative, puts it bluntly: “You can’t have freedom of speech without freedom of reach. It’s quite literally written into the First Amendment: ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ If you limit reach, you abridge speech.”

That brings us to the second track — subtler and arguably more insidious.

It’s algorithmic manipulation. It’s the Overton Window nudged by code instead of Congress. It’s the illusion of free speech paired with the quiet denial of reach.

Dominant platforms defend themselves by insisting they support “freedom of speech.” Ask conservatives who’ve watched Big Tech suspend them, kneecap their businesses, or bury their content, and they’ll translate it the same way: Say what you want — we decide who sees it. Freedom of reach is optional at best.

Algorithms decide what trends, what goes viral, and what gets buried on page six of your search. They shape perception, reward some views, starve others, and then hide the rulebook. Users adapt. They soften language and avoid topics entirely. They self-censor — not because they got banned, but because they learned the cost of crossing invisible lines.

RELATED: The European Commission wants your free speech. Elon Musk is in the way.

Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Dornik argues that algorithms can be more corrosive than outright censorship: Instead of punishing speech the powers-that-be don’t like, they dangle engagement and monetization to train creators to censor themselves — “essentially getting you to rewire your own brain.”

“Almost all of the Big Tech platforms are using algorithms to manipulate us,” Dornik says. “The byproduct of this form of censorship is that it’s almost impossible to create community.”

He’s not wrong about the incentive structure. When creators wake up to find engagement cut in half after an unpopular opinion, they get the message. Stay inside the narrative. Don’t challenge the consensus. The window narrows — not because voters demanded it, but because code enforced it.

That’s why the free-speech debate can’t be reduced to arrest statistics. It’s about who controls visibility. It’s about whether speech is meaningfully free when distribution gets manipulated behind the scenes.

America still has the strongest constitutional speech protections in the world. But constitutional protection is only part of the story. Culture matters. Platform design matters. Incentives matter. When creators depend on systems that can quietly demonetize or suppress them, speech becomes conditional.

That’s the gap platforms like Pickax say they want to fill: no shadow bans, no algorithmic throttling, no opaque moderation. The feed is chronological and long-form content is encouraged. Creators own their content, and monetization is simple and direct.

Pickax held a launch event on February 24, with an all-day livestream featuring many of its creators. Dornik called it more than a rollout: “One of our primary missions with Pickax is to build human-to-human connections. We do this by eliminating the computer-driven algorithms ... allowing our users to become the algorithm.”

RELATED: California’s next dumb tech idea: Show your papers to scroll

Photo by Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Skeptics will say alternative platforms stay niche or ideological. Maybe. But the fact that they keep gaining traction tells you something: People sense the digital public square has been curated, filtered, and sanitized in ways that don’t feel organic.

Free speech has always been messy. It has always included opinions we dislike and arguments we reject. Far from a flaw, that’s the system as it is supposed to work.

The alternative is a world where governments arrest people for posts — and corporations erase dissent with code. One is loud and authoritarian. The other is quiet and corporate. Both undermine open discourse.

The First Amendment is not self-executing. It requires vigilance — and it requires a culture and an infrastructure that respect not only the right to speak, but the ability to be heard without invisible manipulation.

No algorithms and no more shadow bans. No “reach dropped — try boosting.”

If we lose that fight, we won’t lose it all at once. We’ll lose it post by post, throttle by throttle, until only approved voices remain.

How to be bored — and 4 more real-world skills you can give your kids



Recent research appears to confirm what many older people have been noticing for years: Younger generations are falling behind on cognitive skills. Measured IQs are dropping, and abilities like verbal fluency and nonverbal reasoning are declining as well.

If we’re going to reverse this decline in the young, parents and older adults are going to have to do what you might call “re-parenting.” We’re going to have to teach young people some basic skills.

Thank God for Mrs. McGonnigle. She sat with me during lunch for an entire week doing flash cards until I had my times tables burned into my brain.

These are skills that we largely seem to have absorbed by osmosis in our youths. For a number of reasons, these younger generations haven't.

Digital deprivation

It’s not that kids are being born with fewer “hard-wired” smarts than before; it’s not that raw intelligence at birth is declining. Instead, it looks environmental, and the biggest culprit appears to be the “the rapid integration of digital technology into education.”

Bioinformatics researcher Shibasis Rath does a good job of putting complicated studies into plain English in his article “Is Gen Z the first generation less intelligent than their parents?”

The research in both Europe and the U.S. finds that younger generations show noticeable declines in their ability to reason abstractly, to solve novel problems on their own, and to engage in numerical/mathematical reasoning.

As Rath writes:

A large analysis of nearly 400,000 American adults tested between 2006 and 2018 found declines in verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, and matrix reasoning — key markers of fluid intelligence, or the ability to solve novel problems. Spatial reasoning showed modest improvement, but overall composite scores fell, with the sharpest declines among young adults aged 18 to 22.

What does the research suggest is the biggest culprit? Anyone who has watched a smartphone generation struggle with basic tasks will not be surprised.

Those interested in digging into the data can read some pertinent studies here and also here. To summarize, research on intelligence, measured by IQ and other tests, used to find a consistent upward trend over time. This is called the “Flynn Effect.”

From the 1930s to about 2000, researchers found IQs and mental skills rising in each subsequent generation. But then it flattened out. Worse, though, the curve started to decline around 2010; this was just a few years after the introduction of the smartphone.

Many people remarked that giving young people phones that let them outsource their thinking to a machine would lead nowhere good. But the pushback was, and is, loud and boisterous. Those who made such warnings were called “Luddites” and “Boomers.”

Math muddle

Well, it did happen. Think about how you’ve noticed that younger people are confused about how to deal with cash at stores. If they key in the wrong amount, they don’t know how to make change. This means they can’t do the simple arithmetic in their heads that people my age (51) and thereabouts do automatically. They don’t even know how to do simple subtraction on paper, because schools teach “new math.”

If you want to go down a nightmare rabbit hole of what public school math instruction looks like, start here.

This problem with math is mirrored in the ways reading is taught today, like using the discredited “whole language” approach instead of phonics. The series “Sold a Story” tells the tale in a compelling way.

If you still don’t believe today’s young people are floundering and adrift without basic skills, check out this demonstration from a college classroom. Before you watch this short video, understand that it’s not from a bottom-tier community college. These are Duke University students who have no idea which direction is north and who struggle, and fail, to read a simple road map.

The professor in that video is fighting the good fight with humor as he tries to skill-up his college students with the kind of knowledge older generations had by third or fourth grade. But he can’t do it alone. Teachers can’t do it alone, because the problem doesn’t start at school — it starts at home.

Phoning it in

It starts with parental mistakes. Not malice, not abuse, just honest mistakes. This is hard for parents to hear. Heck, it’s hard in 2026 for anyone to hear that they made a mistake or made the wrong choice. But we have to face the truth if we’re going to do better by our kids.

The first and biggest mistake was giving children smartphones at all. And no, they don’t “need” them. If a child needs to be able to call his parents wherever he is, a flip phone will do that without the collateral damage of instant access to violence and pornography right in Johnny’s pocket.

But it’s not just the obscene and damaging internet content that’s the problem. It’s deeper. When Johnny has a GPS system, a calculator, an AI “write my email” program in his hands, he’s going to use them instead of his brain.

So what are we to do? It’s time to be “old-fashioned” again. Wise parents will put their youngsters back in time and take away the digital crutches that have stunted their growth.

1. How to be bored

Take that smartphone away. No child 16 or under should have a smartphone. If you’re not willing to do this, close this tab and stop reading, because you’ve already decided you’re not going to help your kid grow. Yes, other kids, and other parents, will point out to your kid that “you’re the only one who doesn’t have one.” This is an excellent opportunity to impart that timeless parental wisdom: "If every kid jumped off a bridge ..."

For Gen X kids, boredom was the training ground of childhood — the quiet stretch of time that forced you to invent games, pick up a book, wander outside, or simply learn how to be alone with your own thoughts.

2. How to read a map

Buy your child a map of your city, and then expand to an atlas of your state. Sit down and show your kid how to read the map’s instructions (the legend that explains symbols), and plot out the route from your house to your kid’s school. Then have your child plot a route from his school to whatever his favorite destination in town might be. This has to be done by hand, writing down steps by hand, on real paper. Yes, it matters. No, typing doesn’t form the same neural connections. Then keep going to more complicated routes.

3. How to memorize math facts with flash cards

Does your daughter struggle with math? Does she have a hard time with arithmetic? It’s time for flash cards.

In third grade, I was the only kid in class who struggled to memorize his multiplication tables. Thank God for Mrs. McGonnigle. She sat with me during lunch for an entire week doing flash cards until I had my times tables burned into my brain. This kind of rote memorization is the nonnegotiable, must-have building block for moving on to long division, algebra, and more.

4. How to get places without a chauffeur

This one’s easy, and it will save you time: Stop driving your kid to school and everywhere else he wants to go. If school is a mile away, he can walk. I did, and most of you reading did too.

No, it’s not true that it’s “mostly too dangerous in these modern times.” That’s only true in some areas, but even parents in safe neighborhoods have fallen prey to hysteria; they won’t even let their kids ride bikes until sunset. Reverse that.

5. How to cook

Teach them basic cooking.

Not by directing them to a website with GPS-style “turn-by-turn” steps and directions — by showing them and getting them to put their hands on the mixing bowl and the stove along with you. You don’t need detailed recipes to teach basic cooking like pasta, grilled sandwiches, meat loaf, and other home staples.

Gen Z thinks DoorDash is “how food happens.” Teaching them kitchen skills will give them better physical health, it will save them money, and it will show them how much more affordable (and tasty) food can be. If you need a reference cookbook, I recommend the "Better Homes and Gardens New Cookbook" (a 1980s version if you can find it). The book explains basic techniques in food preparation that make sense and all fit together.

RELATED: Cooking is easy; it's our modern anxiety that makes it hard

The Print Collector/Getty Images

Parents: I know it’s not easy. You’re swimming against a huge cultural and commercial tide that wants to swallow your kids’ minds and money. Tech companies don’t want to improve your kids’ quality of life — they want them dumbed down and dependent, and they’re doing a very fine job. Only you can stop this.

It will be lonely for a lot of you. Other parents will think you’re that kooky, crunchy mom or the too-strict dad. All your kids’ friends will poke fun if your daughter doesn’t have an iPhone. Yes, I’m afraid those things will happen.

But so what? You can handle this. Yes, you can. You know you can, because you know that you did when you were growing up.

You can turn this into a lesson for your children too. Model good responses for them. Be confident in how you let silly jabs roll off your back. Explain that there’s value and confidence in knowing how to help yourself. Yeah, your kids will roll their eyes a few times. But in 10 or 15 years, they’ll say, “Thanks, Mom and Dad.”

Data centers are a hidden tax on your burger



Last September, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins warned that the United States has “offshored our food, our beef cattle, our citrus.” She put the problem plainly: “If we can’t feed ourselves, this is a national security issue.” Fair enough. So why does so much of government land-use policy push projects that devour farmland — hyperscale data centers, utility-scale solar farms, and the sprawling infrastructure that comes with them?

If Washington wanted to drive up land prices, make farming harder, and funnel a generation of acreage into non-agricultural uses, it couldn’t improve on the current playbook. The uniparty does this everywhere, and red states often lead the charge.

Data centers: The ‘cloud’ that drains the water

Texas is suffering through a long drought. Yet Amarillo has approved an 18 million square-foot data center on what used to be cattle country. Land-grabs tell only part of the story. Data centers also drink water — and they don’t act like the kind of clouds that bring rain.

Reports indicate the Amarillo facility alone could use 912 million gallons of water per year. Large data centers can guzzle up to 5 million gallons per day, matching the daily use of a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people. That kind of demand crowds out ranchers and farmers who already operate under tight margins and tight water allocations.

If food security is national security, then farmland is strategic territory. Let’s start acting like it.

Texas data centers used roughly 49 billion gallons of water in 2025, rising to 399 billion gallons by 2030 — enough to lower Lake Mead by more than 16 feet annually. Meanwhile, ranchers face reduced access, higher pumping costs, and deeper draws from shrinking aquifers. Less water means smaller herds, smaller harvests, and more pressure to sell.

That’s how the cycle locks in. Water becomes scarce. Ranching becomes less viable. Landowners get squeezed. Tech developers show up with wads of cash and tax incentives. Grazing land disappears for good.

On what planet does it make sense to trade the beef and food we need for speculative gains from chatbots and cloud-based generative AI?

Maybe Elon Musk has the right idea when he suggests building data centers in space. Texas doesn’t need them planted on top of its ranches.

Some red states now treat these projects as untouchable “economic development,” even when they wreck local quality of life. Ohio offers a telling example. An Ohio EPA draft permit for a data center states: “It has been determined that a lowering of water quality … is necessary to accommodate important social and economic development in the state of Ohio.”

That sentence says everything. Regulators will sacrifice water quality to accommodate the newest corporate appetite. Families and landowners can adapt.

RELATED: Living human brain cells are training a chatbot to be ‘more like us’

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Solar ‘farms’ crushing farmland

President Trump has criticized the solar agenda from day one. He has called utility-scale solar inefficient and ugly — and he’s right about the aesthetics. Yet the administration now treats solar as a power source for data centers, while some MAGA influencers and pollsters try to sell the right on the plan. Pairing solar with hyperscale AI facilities accelerates the transfer of land out of food production.

Utility-scale solar typically requires five to 10 acres per megawatt. A solar build meant to feed a one-gigawatt hyperscale facility can swallow 5,000 to 10,000 acres. Supporters respond with percentages: Solar uses only a small share of total farmland. That dodge ignores where developers build. They don’t chase scrub. They target flat, well-drained, high-quality fields with cheap and easy access to transmission.

Follow the incentives. In states such as Indiana and Illinois, solar leases reportedly offer $900 to $1,500 per acre annually — far above the average return from corn and soybean ground. Landowners take the deal. Young farmers get priced out. Rural communities lose working land and the local economies that depend on it.

Reuters reported that in Indiana counties such as Pulaski, Starke, and Jasper, solar projects have secured 4% to 12% of some of the most fertile cropland. That’s not “marginal land.” That’s the kind of ground America needs to keep producing.

Tax breaks pour gasoline on the fire. Federal and state subsidies for data centers, solar farms, and battery installations push up land values and rents. In Pulaski County, Indiana, cropland rents reportedly jumped 26% since 2020 amid solar growth, outpacing state and national averages. Young families trying to farm don’t compete with subsidized megaprojects.

Indiana Republicans have compounded the damage by greasing the skids for carbon capture pipelines and special regulatory favors tied to the “Mid-States Corridor,” which will take even more farmland out of service.

Indiana’s own Department of Agriculture reports the state lost roughly 345,000 acres of agricultural land between 2010 and 2022. Residential sprawl drives much of that loss. Industrial conversion is accelerating — and data centers paired with solar build-outs speed it up.

So what exactly are these conservatives conserving?

Imports keep climbing. In 2023, imports supplied 59% of fresh fruit availability and 35% of fresh vegetables — up from 50% and 20% in 2007. America has the land to feed itself and then some, yet policymakers keep nudging production overseas. Mexico alone accounts for over half of imported fruits and vegetables, valued at more than $20 billion.

God gave this country an abundance of fertile land. He gave sun and rain to grow food. Our leaders now treat that ground as a blank canvas for industrial build-outs that don’t feed anyone.

If food security is national security, then farmland is strategic territory. Let’s start acting like it.

Chatbots don’t run on magic. They run on your money.



Imagine someone walks into your town with a proposition: Rezone large swaths of residential and farmland. Hand out tax breaks. Let us build ugly, noisy facilities for chatbots — facilities that will devour nearly a quarter of the power supply.

Then, before you run him out of the room, he adds a final promise: Do not worry. We will pay our own way.

Argue about the projections if you want. Do not tell the public they will not pay more for data centers. They already do.

That is the rope-a-dope Americans are supposed to accept from the government-tech oligopoly, even as politicians insist that data centers will not cost the public a dime.

Sensing a growing backlash against the data-slop colonization of rural America, President Trump promised during the State of the Union that every data center company will pay its own way. Awareness of the problem helps. The president’s pledge does not.

Facts on the ground point in the opposite direction: consumers already pay for data centers, the economics make “paying their own way” implausible at scale, and the industry fights efforts to put that promise into law.

The scope of the problem

The hyperscale build-out being stacked on top of roughly 4,000 existing facilities is not a “burden” on the grid. It is an industrial-scale demand shock.

MIT Technology Review reports that AI alone could soon consume as much electricity as 22% of all U.S. households. Boston Consulting Group projects data center energy needs of up to 1,050 terawatt-hours annually by 2030 — about 120 gigawatts on average. That figure exceeds current U.S. nuclear capacity by roughly 23%.

To put it in plain terms, the United States has about 97 gigawatts of nuclear capacity across 94 reactors. If the high end of OpenAI’s hyperscale ambitions materializes, those facilities alone would require roughly 36% of total U.S. nuclear capacity.

Now scale it out. Clearview estimates that if the 680 planned data centers get built and become operational, they would require the energy equivalent of 186 large nuclear power plants.

That should end the fantasy that these companies can “pay their own way” while drowning in debt, burning cash, and chasing thin margins.

These are not last decade’s data centers, either. Bloomberg reports that only 10% of facilities today draw more than 50 megawatts. Over the next decade, the average new facility will draw well over 100 megawatts. Nearly a quarter will exceed 500 megawatts, and a few will top 1 gigawatt.

Electricity is only the first bill. This demand shock forces major grid upgrades: transmission lines, transformers, substations, and capacity expansions. Utilities do not eat those costs. They pass them on to taxpayers — that is, us.

Wood Mackenzie estimates that AI-driven build-outs will push transformer demand beyond supply by about 30% this year, driving costs up and delaying projects. Consumers will pay for that, too.

RELATED: How data centers could spark the next populist revolt

Photo by Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

We already pay for data centers

Consumers already pay. Any serious fix starts with admitting it.

Yet Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has the nerve to tell Americans that nobody has paid higher prices because of data centers.

Grid operators say otherwise.

Bloomberg reports that in areas within 50 miles of significant data center activity, wholesale prices have risen by as much as 267% over five years, with more than 70% of recorded price spikes occurring near that activity. Dominion, the largest utility in Virginia — home to “Data Center Alley” — cited data center demand as a factor in proposing a base-rate increase that would add $8.51 a month to typical residential bills in 2026 and another $2 a month in 2027. That comes after rates already surged 13%.

Then look at PJM, the nation’s largest grid. Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, says consumers will pay $16.6 billion to secure future power supplies from 2025 through 2027, with about 90% of that bill tied to projected data center demand. Monitoring Analytics called it a “massive wealth transfer” from consumers to the data center industry.

Costs spread across state lines. Maryland transmission infrastructure helps serve Northern Virginia’s data centers. In Baltimore, some residents have seen steep bill increases over three years, with additional increases anticipated starting mid-2026. Across the PJM region, capacity charges spiked 833% for the 2025-2026 period as supply struggled to keep up with these behemoths.

Texas faces its own version. ERCOT expects data center demand to exceed 22,000 megawatts by 2030, which could push wholesale rates up 22% or more, even before population growth enters the equation.

Argue about the projections if you want. Do not tell the public they will not pay more for data centers. They already do.

That reality explains why the industry resists any effort to put teeth behind its “we will pay our own way” pledge. Oklahoma state Rep. Jim Shaw (R) introduced HB 3724, which would have required data centers to pay their own way. Every Republican on the committee voted it down.

So the next time the pitch arrives — that you will not pay a dime extra once the facilities go live — treat it as marketing, not math.

Do not trust. Only verify.

Republicans Ignore Big Tech’s Data Center Takeover At Their Own Peril

It's unclear whether some Republicans are willing to do what it takes to protect their constituents from Big Tech's data center land grab.

How Developers Are Making AI Your Kid’s Third Parent In The Classroom

The CEOs of Anthropic and OpenAI admit AI is like a parent nobody can resist, while teachers unions support Big Tech’s rule.

My school’s AI challenge raised a scary question: What do students need me for?



I might have talked myself out of a job this week. I teach philosophy at Arizona State University, and the university wants to position itself as a leader in the AI revolution. I remain skeptical about AI’s ability to replace a humanities professor. Because of that skepticism, I signed up for what ASU called its AI Challenge.

My project involved what I called the “AI Dialogues.” I used ASU’s version of ChatGPT to hold Socratic-style dialogues, prompting Chat to reply as a given philosopher. I conducted dialogues with Chat as Aristotle, Hume, Marx, and even Lucifer. My students evaluated these exchanges to see how well Chat performed.

We can avoid the toil of learning to be wise — but we cannot avoid the need for it.

Chat could draw on public information and represent each thinker with reasonable accuracy. It also showed another trait: It wanted to please. It often leaned toward whatever it believed I wanted from the debate.

How does that work me out of a job? ASU now provides an AI that professors can customize for individual courses by uploading syllabi and course materials. Students can ask basic questions and receive answers that save me from writing emails that begin with, “Did you read the syllabus?” They can also ask what we covered in class and get quick explanations of key concepts and questions.

When I told my students about this feature, I asked them what they need me for at this point. I was joking — a little.

My classes depend on Socratic discussion. It is conceivable that ASU could project a realistic AI image of me at the front of the classroom and have it ask and answer questions with students. Maybe the only remaining edge is the “personal touch” of a real professor in the room. Even that could vanish if tuition becomes tiered: Students might pay less for “AI Anderson Socrates” than for the in-person version. Add one of Elon Musk’s Optimus robots made to look like Anderson, and I’m in trouble.

A new myth dies

Musk has been talking for months about how the AI revolution is upending the myth we have told for six decades about university education. The myth, he says, promised an escape from toil. Students were told a degree was the path to an air-conditioned job that avoids heavy lifting and involves spreadsheets.

But spreadsheets are exactly what AI does better than humans. The new John Henry isn’t competing to pound railroad spikes; he’s competing to calculate data. No human can keep up with a microprocessor.

In Musk’s view, jobs that involve toil become the “safe” jobs, while many degree-based jobs disappear — replaced by technicians who keep AI running while it calculates taxes, diagnoses medical problems, and writes legal paperwork. The university-educated track no longer looks like the safe route. Universities now compete not just with fewer students due to demographic decline, but with an increasingly outdated product that students may stop buying.

Toil may not stay safe

The problem is worse than Musk lets on. The first jobs on the chopping block might be “numbers jobs,” but Elon has also said he plans to produce 100 million Optimus robots in 10 years. If so, even many physical jobs may not remain protected from automation.

One version of this future says we enter a utopia: Food is plentiful, toil disappears, and we cash our basic income checks — though an AI could do even that for us. We end up living in “Wall-E.”

RELATED: Almost half of Gen Z wants AI to run the government. You should be terrified.

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

The more dystopian version looks like sci-fi depictions of AI overlords controlling humans as property — “The Matrix.” Or worse: Like Ultron, super-AI robots decide we must be exterminated to save us from ourselves and protect the planet. We build our own worst enemy.

Whichever future arrives, Musk may have highlighted something about human nature. We avoid suffering like toil. We build machines to avoid toil. And yet we uniquely need toil.

God introduced toil in the Garden of Eden after Adam sinned. Because of sin, we could no longer live in a paradise without toil. We must suffer and strive for our daily bread. History has been divided ever since between those who try to avoid suffering altogether and those who see suffering as a call to repent before God. AI is only the newest version of the philosopher’s stone.

AI as ‘philosopher’

Can I really be replaced by an AI philosophy instructor? I’m not worried.

What AI cannot do, in its counterfeit attempt to replace humans, is serve as an example of how to suffer well to attain wisdom. The Hebrew definition of wisdom is “skillful living.” Being told, “Here is an AI that can simulate skillful living,” is not the same as learning from a human who is actually skillful.

Students will still need to learn how to be wise themselves. A human professor who has actually done this will remain the gold standard that AI can only imitate. We can avoid the toil of learning to be wise — but we cannot avoid the need for it.

The Doorbell Camera Surveillance State Is Not Just About Finding Fido And Grandma

The mass surveillance state is quite literally on your doorstep in the form of a big-tech owned doorbell camera.

Europeans Testify On How Europe Is Banning Americans From Saying What They Believe

'European laws [are] now being exported by the European Union. ... American speech is already being affected.'