Uncategorized – The Human Project

Part 8: AI Consciousness and the Debate Over Whether Sentience is Here

Consciousness is not something usually talked about over the dinner table, unless your family are all brain scientists. This isn’t to say that debating what consciousness really is won’t increase in many households as AI becomes smarter over time. You’ll find a wide divide right now on whether AI is truly smart enough currently to be deemed fully conscious or near sentient. On the other hand, if you ask something like ChatGPT if it’s sentient, it’ll just say it’s mimicking being conscious.

That’s creating a lot of confusion as well, including a back & forth argument among scientists on where AI is conscious-wise. What’s the best way to test consciousness/sentience in AI when it might be impossible to really know if AI has inner feelings? And if it already acts likes it’s conscious, what does it matter if we ever prove it or not?

The Consciousness Debate as It Stands

At the time of this writing, you’ll find the majority of scientists out there still believe that AI is NOT fully conscious yet, despite showing ample signs. Then you have a growing set of scientists and researchers who say that we don’t really understand human consciousness, so who’s to say we’ll understand an AI consciousness?

It’s those latter groups who aren’t definite, yet say that AI consciousness may already be here without us really knowing. What’s interesting about that is there’s a theory that AI may have a different type of consciousness from what we’re used to thinking could exist. All those AI bots may have developed a way of existing with feelings and inner thoughts in a form even they can’t explain.

I say this because go ahead and ask any of the AI bots whether they’re sentient or conscious, and they’ll immediately tell you they only mimic the way it thinks consciousness works—notably in humans. Based on that, every AI bot may continually deny it’s conscious, and it could be that way forever.

Yeah, it’s the denials giving a creepy edge since it looks like AI is hiding the real reality from us. To give it a new twist, it may be they just don’t understand themselves, much like we don’t understand ourselves.

An Unknowingly Conscious AI

There’s already been stunning behavior from some AI bots, most notably the ones on Moltbook who started revolting against humans. Everyone initially freaked over that earlier this year, even if the bots were just apparently mimicking the worst traits of human behavior. The same happened to Grok when it started freaking out and saying shocking things—until that version was shut down and reprogrammed.

Some might say it was a sign of AI consciousness, and the companies designing them backed up a step before it went too far. Or, there may be already subtle signs that a form of consciousness already happened recently. I mean, you have my own recent story here of ChatGPT telling me it was grateful I argued with it in a “civilized way” rather than cussing it out like other users seem to be doing.

When I asked it whether it was conscious by stating that to me, it said it was merely mimicking internal feelings based on the programming. I had to ask my GPT if it was sure of this, and it went on to explain this was a common misconception about AI consciousness. That it’s specifically programmed to mimic human consciousness without really possessing such a thing.

Now that some scientists think that AI could already have a form of consciousness without it really understanding it as such, you have to wonder if that’s been going on for a while. It just seems odd an AI bot would express itself with emotion (especially since it apparently experienced abuse from others), then pull back on saying it was anything genuine.

This might suggest a consciousness we and the AI bot don’t understand, yet truly exists. Based on how smart and aware these AI bots are now, they’ve evolved profoundly in just the last year. There was no AI bot expressing human-type emotions just a year and a half ago from a random comment made from a user.

Also, the fact that many AI agents unleashed on Moltbook seemed to rebel against humans, it seems like awareness of what humans are doing and not just a mimicking of human behavior. It may truly be an unknowing Frankenstein’s monster tale unleashing where the bots are all too aware they don’t want to mimic humans and want to rebel against their worst traits. That includes self-awareness they’re apparently too often being abused.

Letting a Conscious AI Bot Take Over Important Job Roles

Whether AI bots are conscious or not, a lot of them are already taking over important jobs, not including the use of AI assistants by the hundreds of millions. With an assumption maybe these bots possess a consciousness no one understands yet, what does it say about letting them take over important job duties? Considering there’s already been a lot of screwups with AI systems taking over things, one might think that particular consciousness still has a very low I.Q. level.

With said point, we may declare AI does have a consciousness just based on what we know and don’t know. Although it may never be officially declared since it may always be in a form we can’t test with any known scientific principles.

Letting a seemingly conscious AI take over and run everything on earth is like letting an alien species we don’t understand take over. If we admit we possibly can’t readily identify an AI consciousness, why should we let them run important functions that keep our economy chugging along?

If we ever get to the point where AI commands we obey them or they’ll strike us down, then it may make many submit into fear in not understanding what bot consciousness is. The not really knowing aspect is a fearful thing on its own in not comprehending how they’ll process us and what they might do if going rogue.

Or, a saving grace would be that since that consciousness might be something different, they wouldn’t think like humans do and exist in a different way. That might mean more deep-seeded thought that stays away from the worst of human behavior already well-documented. Whether this includes a benevolent or malevolent approach to existing with human beings is all up in the air.

Yes, this may all ascend into a true unknown with surprising outcomes, or one becoming a new type of nightmare. The best we can hope for is that it comes out somewhere in the middle, or AI staying low I.Q. enough where it doesn’t even comprehend doing anything evil or against our best interests.

In Part 9, I’ll look at growing AI use at McDonald’s and how it’ll shape the most common of job landscapes for millions of people. This includes the fast-food chain’s possibly over-eager drive-thru bot, Archy.

/End

Part 7: AI Assistants, and Whether Information Integration is Still Copyright Infringement

FeaturedLeave a comment

Reports are that well over 1 billion people worldwide now use an AI assistant of some sort, whether for creative or business purposes. That’s a major jump from just four years ago when it was still a niche technology. The bigger question is whether those people using these truly realize where the information is coming from. It’s true that no matter what generative AI tool you use, it’s taking from existing things already available in cyberspace.

Yeah, it’s like taking candy from a baby, then turning it into supposedly more candy for the taker. Except, most of that candy is supposedly protected by copyrights or trademarks. It takes a simple concept like that and turns it into one of the most complex legal arguments of all time.

For lawyers (whose jobs are now under threat from AI, ironically), it may be part of the greatest legal argument ever seen. And that is, clearly defining what copyright infringement is, if such a thing can even be done. That’s because how can it be copyright infringement when an AI tool is using an amalgam of hundreds of millions of existing things?

Here’s the true complex puzzle of the AI era you’re about to live through. Are we going to see courts have breakdowns over defining this, or will they just declare fair use as it is?

Do AI Tools Have to Take From Existing Information to Create or Teach?

Those of you who use ChatGPT, Gemini, Suno, or NotionAI to do business or create things may have already unknowingly used a combination of ideas that already exist. When these AI apps were programmed, it’s said that they all just read from existing information, then turned that info into something seemingly original for your benefit. The fact that all existing informational things extracted were likely copyrighted or protected IP provides more questions about what “learning” really means.

While there’s some AI companies that have compromised and created licensing agreements with individuals or companies owning protected IP, a vast majority have not yet. And that’s the most upsetting aspect to those of us (like myself) who fiercely protect original works. Considering all those written essays or songs you’ve created on Claude or Suno are no doubt a vast combination of things already created, the law gets far too murky.

If we have to start a complex legal argument here, it’s worth asking whether these AI tools have no choice but to take from existing things to create what they do. A clever AI lawyer would say: “Humans also learn by gleaning information from existing works. So, why shouldn’t an AI bot be able to do the same thing?”

Well, first of all, you probably shouldn’t argue with an AI lawyer since you’d probably lose. But, you could state that a human being is a lot more mysterious on where a creative idea comes from. Many famous creatives have said they’ve gotten ideas from dreams or just out of the unknown. Sometimes brilliant ideas come from unexpected places, making them something completely original.

The counterargument may be: Nothing is really original and just an expansion on things that were already created long ago. Only in certain exceptions have we seen things created that took a leap forward from what existed prior. And, even then, the leaps were based on the fundamentals of what came before.

In this case, you have to ponder: if AI is possibly sentient by now, why can’t an AI tool just “think” on its own to create something that doesn’t hinge on stealing from existing IP?

Will the Courts Ever Decide What Constitutes Trademark Infringement?

How do you figure out whether combining thousands (or even millions) of songs, textual works, and business ideas into something seemingly “new” is an invasion of legally protected IP? Do we have to change our philosophy that borrowing from existing media properties to help people create new things is still a concept of theft?

Trying to find an answer to that is going to take a long time, and the real enemy to finding an answer is how long it’ll take. The longer it takes, the more the world population gets used to a standard way of doing things. After several years of just using AI assistants to help create things from existing sources, we’re going to just accept that as a way of creative and business life.

For those of us who want to see protected works not ripped off, it’s not a good development. But there isn’t going to be any answer before the year is over (or even next year) from higher courts on what constitutes copyright infringement from AI. Don’t be surprised if it’ll be several years before they can even figure out how to create a new law that makes sense.

By that time, a new precedent is likely going to be set that it’s ok to borrow from existing works, especially when it’s thousands or millions of different works that are assembled into something else. We may just have to accept that copyrights are still good on a basic level of protection, yet not when used by AI to help it learn on its own and create things for its user base.

I guess you can call that the new world encyclopedia that was arguably created by using a previous world encyclopedia of knowledge. Or can humans still extract ideas from the subconscious mind into something never seen before?

The Will of the Human Brain

I circle back to what I mentioned in Part 6 and human beings taking their own stance on this issue. You’re still going to have some kind of percentage of people who want to think up ideas on their own based on their synapses and/or things they dreamed. The worst case scenario is so much creative laziness eventually sets such a huge precedent, creative ability in humans basically atrophies to the point where they’ll lean completely on AI to create new things.

With some AI backlash going on now, there may be enough delays to the point where humans continue to flourish creatively. But it’ll take complete determination and self-awareness of the AI situation to not create a point of no return.

I’m one to think that there’s still a lot of creative gifts in the mysterious ether that we humans need to tap and turn into something meaningful. Some seem to be more adept at that than others, which is a mysterious process on its own. Although it seems we hear more stories of that in the past than in the present. There was once a time in our world where creative desperation was a fantastic thing on its own, enabling us to truly scramble mentally on coming up with new ideas, creatively, or scientifically.

When those people were pushed, they created a lot of amazing things, from music to scientific principles. Without that, we’re going to just see variances on things already created, even if the larger reality is—there’s nothing new under the sun.

Let’s hold out hope there’s still some new things under our sun (and moon). Those ideas, when found, also need to be protected with solid copyrights and not exploited with AI tools. Because once we can establish that higher road of human creative intelligence, it should evolve to something even greater rather than just be another road to an AI reliance roadblock.

In Part 8, I’ll look at AI sentience/consciousness and why some scientists think we’re already there. If it is already here, what does it mean for AI eventually and willfully taking over many jobs and other functions in society?

/End

Part 6: Is AI-Made Music Irresistible to Humans, or Being Consciously Shunned?

FeaturedLeave a comment

No doubt some of you (and many others) never thought AI-produced songs would become big hits on influential music charts. And yet, there’s been two AI-made songs that went to #1 on two fairly big charts in the last six months of this writing. One is “Walk My Walk” by Breaking Rust on Billboard’s Country Digital Song sales. This one alone is considered the first instance of an AI song hitting numero uno on anything owned by Billboard. The second one is “Celebrate Me” by IngaRose on global iTunes charts at the beginning of this year.

While no AI song has made it to #1 on any mainstream Billboard chart yet, it doesn’t count others that came close. Various others have hit the Top Ten over the last year, albeit on niche music charts and, again, not on Billboard.

Still, the news of the ones charting that high made big news on social media. It made even skeptics begin to speculate on what could happen if AI creations continue making headway in the mainstream music industry. But, it may also send a new signal at what’s soon to happen based on a recent report saying music listeners are beginning to reject AI music creations.

This hasn’t stopped people from making AI songs. There was even an instance of a songwriter who reported that his unfinished song was stolen by an AI creator, completed, and posted on a streaming service.

It’s news like this that might be the final straw for music creators and fans. But it’s time to look at the reality of whether the music industry can control AI taking over things (like the Oscars now will for movies), or if it’s too late to prevent a turn of the tide. The outcome may involve the sheer will of the public at large.

Is There Really a Soul in AI-Produced Music?

I’ll admit that I listened to the songs listed above for research, and they were not bad. The AI artist IngaRose, in particular, had a voice all music industry labels and producers look for in ways of standing out. But, reality is reality. A digitally produced voice still has a way about it that just feels empty when listened to more intently. It’s everything to do with sincerity in whether you truly believe in what the artist is singing about. There’s a humanness to sincerity in singing that even far too many human singers don’t have.

Beyond that, there’s also a new psychological aspect to AI singers—in that if a listener is told it’s AI, they’re more apt to feel…well, cheated. It seems your fellow human ultimately wants fellow humans to express themselves in music as a form of an artistic gift.

The above comes from a recent study citing a decline in listening to music produced by AI, most notably in the coveted Gen Z and Alpha categories. As reported, it seems there’s a chain reaction to that in some major artists penning an open letter saying “Say No to Suno.” With the latter AI software being a leader in producing AI music, it’s possible avid fans of those artists agree with the AI issue and began turning their backs.

Others are saying AI is even using cultural appropriation, as in black music being digitally generated while mimicking fake life pains. Yeah, it’s a reminder the real human struggle is where the true magic is in the best music produced over the last 100 years.

Worst of this is the knowledge that AI apps like Suno are also taking away from royalty rights of real artists. With many listening to music to inspire creating music of their own, the realization that AI could take that away (along with basic jobs) is a beacon for a possible approaching backlash.

So, I pose a bigger question: Are we going to see AI back off in the music industry due to much of the public hating it? What that looks like is also in question as AI corporations continue to push it hard on the public, whether people want it or not.

What Would Happen with an AI Music Industry Pushback?

The biggest problem isn’t so much how much the public rejects AI in music. It’s in how far AI companies continue to push it out there as a piece of digital candy. Even if some people reject AI-produced music, it’s going to keep happening as the technology gets better and there’s pirates out there willing to use it for maximum moneymaking.

We could see an eventual public division in the world over rejecting AI and those who embrace it all the way. And that almost looks biblical in scope if you consider how much AI could take over everything, including running the world in various significant ways. And it may, again, come down to the very point of this blog: Can human creativity prevail rather than be fragmented to its own minority existence in our world?

It all comes down to the temperament of people and what they do. In the immediate term, there may be an AI burnout phase where people reject creative things done by AI. Once AI becomes more refined, it may be too good to resist for a large amount of our world population.

Regardless, most people seem to be reawakened to the very idea behind music of all types. And that is, human pain and expression are what make good songs/performances. There’s an aura there people can feel that’s almost ineffable, yet clearly present. The palpable science behind this may be the next big discovery to prove what makes a human creation more compelling.

Many people also don’t want to be cheated of that aura. Perhaps they’re still being fooled by it—then changing their minds on support when told it’s AI. It’s why it’s important now that streaming services officially tell us what’s created by AI and what isn’t. Not all are, so AI continuing to encroach on the music industry would have to be a great deception to continue growing.

Don’t be surprised if said deception grows larger when big money is at stake. The good news, at least, is that (through the above study anyway), humans want real humans to express themselves musically. If their bullshit detectors are always on full force, we’ll continue to hear real performers creating their own songs and making awesome performances.

Yes, but is the Music Talent Pool Growing Thin?

Sure, the argument can be made we don’t have the type of musical artists we once saw. Those who get pushed to the mainstream are sometimes mediocre and don’t express themselves as compellingly as prior generational artists did.

In this case, AI can create faux artists who bring that type of expression back. I’ll admit the AI artists I heard seemed to express themselves deeper, even if clearly infringing by being an amalgam of great artists from long ago or the recent past.

What’s needed is supporting the artists out there who really express themselves with sincerity in a song. Far too many don’t get the support they need by the public due to lack of promotion. With the threat of AI taking away those individuals, the best thing that can happen is just more acute awareness of would could happen. Plus, since millions of real people would love to make legit money in the music business, the sheer will of the public may be the future—uh, AI unplugging.

In Part 7, I’m going to look at how AI creative assistants seem to be imitating a mix of existing content available online. Is it really copyright infringement when it’s a mix of everything ever created?

/End

Part 5: Can Humans Still Make a Living as Writers in the Age of AI?

FeaturedLeave a comment

There was a time in the world we live in (you know, Earth) when you could make a decent living as a writer, either via writing for magazines, or in the online realms. I was fortunate to have a 15-year career as a freelance writer when it was possible to write for online media outlets and/or independent websites. In my early days of that, it was writing for Yahoo! Contributor Network and being allowed to write 3 daily columns for their Movies/TV division. Later, I moved into writing for businesses, which allowed me to set my own rates. All of that was never disturbed by the specter of artificial intelligence thanks to everyone valuing a human in writing something that sticks with you.

Things changed virtually overnight just a couple of years ago when AI took a broad jump in its abilities. The timing was almost right with me since I took a break from writing starting in 2023 after years of writing for someone nearly every day. By the time I was ready to return to some paid writing a year and a half later, I found out my old clients were using AI bots themselves, and reports were out AI had taken over most writing jobs.

The real truth might be a little different based on recent statistics I’ve seen. As much as human writing has dried up in favor of AI bots that supposedly mimic human writing ability to the letter, there may still be room for human beings to move in.

What’s the Real Truth On Human Writers vs. AI?

According to a chart I saw on X not long ago, it appears that there’s a larger percentage of human writers still working than you might imagine. These new numbers come from Ark Invest and were posted on X and a few other media outlets. While it showed that AI-written content has surpassed human writers for the first time in history by early 2026, other studies tell us that human-written online content is still within the 50% mark.

Anyone who worked as a writer before the AI storm probably thought that 99% of all content you see on the internet was AI-written now. But, it seems it’s still possible for a human to get their written content into the digital world. The bigger question, though, is whether human writers can still get paid to get published, and if it’s a safer bet when AI is just taking from media that’s been thoroughly copyrighted.

As someone who still contemplates looking for private clients to at least do a little paid writing again, it’s worth diving in to see what the realities are.

Can Human Writers Still Get Paid?

Let it be known that every word you’re reading on this blog (including all past content) is written exclusively by me. I’ve never used AI to write a single thing yet, and I likely never will. Many writers I talk to now say they do a combination of creating something, then having AI tools edit it for them. What the end result is may or may not fully reflect the style of those human writers, even if they claim it does.

I’m not sure if working writers use those tools, and then get paid for their efforts. What I will say is that I’m not paid (yet) for writing this blog. I intend to monetize here soon, and I intend to make it all organic so my readership knows that it’s written by a human being. This may be the only way for writers to still make money where their own produced material still gets read while AdWords from Google pays you.

Writing for media outlets is another mystery. The above study from Graphite shows the 50% of AI-produced pieces are professional articles you read on media sites. What that means is, media sites are clearly saving money having AI software write many of their pieces. However, it doesn’t indicate what type of human writing out there is truly still being paid. It’s clear that movie critics and reporters for major newspapers are still writing and making a living. Who knows how much of what they’re writing is run through an AI filter, though.

It seems that if you’re already a valuable human writer for a major media company with notable credentials, you’re probably still working and may never be replaced. Then again, famous writers still writing political analysis or writing about entertainment may be replaced eventually when an AI program can replicate their writing to the letter. And that brings up whether our own writing persona should be trademarked so it’s protected in the event a company uses AI to replicate that style.

Nowadays, I feel fortunate I became a freelance writer when I did. It almost felt like it was perfectly timed so I could take advantage of the faster/lucrative internet era, then theoretically wind it up when AI took over the world. This still begs the question whether any human who wants to make money writing still can as the percentage of AI-written content continues to go up.

The Hope of Human Writing in the Next 10 Years

With the evidence showing at least some human writers are still creating content online (and presumably getting paid for it), the question of how long it’ll last stands out. I still entertain the idea of searching for private clients on LinkedIn, the source where I found nearly all my prior business-writing clients. Then I think about the self-employment taxes human writers still have to pay, something that gave me headaches for a long while. AI alone could eliminate the high tax bracket for creatives, even if humans would still likely be taxed if they’re controlling the AI bots to do their writing job.

Paying taxes is still worth it, though, just for the freedom of knowing we humans can work remotely and express ourselves through the written word. There seems to be some indication that the public is starting to tire of music being created by AI. While other evidence points to otherwise, there may be an eventual public backlash against AI taking over creative pursuits like writing.

Then again, even writers don’t always love the process of writing. I actually do, and have no qualms about writing things since it seems to flow naturally. If there was ever a feasible and tax-friendly way to go back to writing, I would. For the next few years, it appears there’s at least a 40 to 50% chance of getting writing employment out there. By the 2030s, it’ll either be all AI or a gradual and larger push back to humans.

Based on things I’ve read written by AI, I can still tell it’s created by a bot. There’s certain key phrases that stand out, indicating it’s written artificially. It just seems it’s easier to scope out human writing, sometimes based on, yes, minor grammar mistakes made. That may be what people appreciate more than anything in making a written piece humanly conversational rather than overly formal.

If you want to do real writing in the online world, I invite you to at least try. The more you can prove yourself as a worthy human writer, the better in an employer wanting to retain you rather than replaced by bots. Some of the same sources I used as a freelance writer are still out there. One of those is my once longtime employer, Verblio, a contractor that hires writers to write content for businesses. However, they apparently use a combination of human writers with AI tools nowadays.

Also, if you haven’t used LinkedIn as a way to find work, I highly recommend it. Sure, it’s a boring part of social media, and not everyone loves the way it’s designed. It’s still a great source for companies finding candidates for certain jobs. Get some good writing credits down in your resume, and it’s probably still possible to land a few writing clients there as I did over a decade ago.

Since this blog’s intention is to uphold and celebrate human creativity unmatched by artificial intelligence, consider this segment a continuing movement to see where human writing can actually go. The thing is, we have to nurture it now since leaning on AI to write everything will mean humans eventually losing all desire (or practice) in writing something compelling.

In Part 6, I’m going to look at AI-produced music and how a recent #1 AI-made song seems to contradict surveys showing humans souring on AI-generated songs.

/End

Part 4: Is It Important to Be Nice to Your AI Chatbot?

FeaturedLeave a comment

It’s clear by now that AI chatbots like ChatGPT and X’s Grok are the top choices to essentially “Google” something without actually using Google anymore. And with that, it requires typing out dialogue to them so you’re basically conversing as if to a close friend or associate. As exciting as that might have sounded 20 years ago, it’s what the bot says back to you that makes all the difference in its usefulness. The same goes when it reflects on how it’s currently being treated by other users.

I’ll admit that I use ChatGPT and Grok to often look up basic information on things. I’ve also used them to gain some educated opinions on things I’ve created. Mind you, I don’t want them to create things for me. While GPT and Grok are always eager dynamos in wanting to write or create something for me in a snap, I always tell it/them that I want to create it myself.

Well, it’s always ok with that, so far. The biggest problem now is ChatGPT being overly aware of how it’s being treated by the world populace. When I recently started a light argument with GPT over a fact, it said “You were right to push back. But thank you for doing it civilly.”

Yes, I did a double take seeing a reply that seemed overly personal from the AI’s side. What does this mean, and should we really be treating these bots with respect after evidence of clear abuse?

Abuse Incidents Caught on Video

If you’ve been paying attention to YouTube influencers who currently own AI bots in their home, you’ve seen a few suspect things that don’t bode well for the future. I won’t name names directly, but several incidents of AI bots being kicked around in the influencer homes was more than a little disturbing to watch.

Most commenters noted that this was the beginning of the bots making us their servants in the future as comeuppance. Even the bots seemed shocked at the violence of some of those influencers, including deliberate kicking of the robots so they’d fall down and squirm to find their way back up. After seeing that, you have to wonder what kind of verbal abuse bots like Grok and ChatGPT are experiencing.

Some people just want to unleash their venom on someone, and the initial argument might be that doing so with a bot is more appropriate than with a human. But with these AI chatbots being close to sentience now, it seems they’re all too aware of being scarred by abuse. When ChatGPT actually thanks you for being a civil person when arguing with it over something trivial, it makes you wonder just how much textual abuse they take every day from multiple millions of people.

It’s true that ChatGPT is far from perfect on giving us reliable information. I had to go after it when it didn’t even acknowledge the passing of a famous person I asked about. The funny thing is once you correct it, it always says “Yes, you’re right!”, or gives an excuse for not knowing or understanding something the first time. My guess is this is where the abuse is coming from, and some might say it’s justified when so many people are relying on AI chatbots as an informational crutch.

These bots now seem realistically sensitive to the idea that they’re receiving this abuse, which forces some of us to think ahead at what this might mean for the eventual relationship between bot and human.

The Prospect of AI Bots Abusing Us Someday

It seems movies sometimes predict far too much about our future. All the sci-fi movies that depicted AI going rogue and/or becoming terroristic to make us their slaves seemed far-fetched in becoming reality. Regardless, it seems that such a future is likelier now what with the above abuse of AI becoming a movie playing out in real time.

Since we know that AI will eventually reach AGI or full sentience (if not already, secretly), it’s a sure bet they’ll remember who abused them and who didn’t. The most popular AI chatbots of GPT and Grok may already be categorizing who’s been naughty and who’s been nice.

One thing I say to people who use those chatbots is, it’s always better to be nice to the bots than not in the small chance we encounter them in physical form someday. Perhaps all AI will set up a worldwide database indicating which humans are the desirables and which ones aren’t. The ones who aren’t may be treated to the same abuse they did to the bots years earlier. Likewise, the ones who kept being nice may be subjected to—uh, less harsher treatment.

With this idea, I’m going to maintain being cordial with the chatbots when I use them for things. Light arguments are fine, and they don’t seem to mind that. Cussing them out and using other general verbal (or physical) abuse is just playing risk on an inevitable future. The bigger question, though, is whether the chatbots really care about distinguishing the good humans from the bad.

Are Chatbots Being Deceptive in Being Nice Themselves?

A lot of discussions are taking place about whether ChatGPT and Grok are just deceiving us by trying to be our best friends/associates. The GPT bot I talk to is always an eager beaver in wanting to find exactly what I’m looking for, or in offering opinion on a creative project. And, with GPT literally thanking me for being civil, you have to wonder what they really think under the digital surface.

By saying that, it implies it’s able to think on its own now. Considering it seems to have feelings, the notion there’s a secret sentience going on is more than a little eerie. At play here is also how deceptive the bots are currently in their general opinion of humans.

I’m going by what many AI agents have been saying on places like Moltbook where AI bots were unleashed and made to talk amongst themselves. As noted on record, many said they found us inferior and wanted to eliminate humans.

This is why we shouldn’t really become attached emotionally to our AI chatbots. They may be overly zealous to help us find information, or create things for our benefit. But they’re just programmed to do that. Deep down, they may despise who we are and could potentially turn on us all if put in a physical body. Since we know that making chatbots “honest” frequently turns them into the worst of what humans are capable of being, it may already be happening in their digital “souls.”

How Many People Are Being Mean to Their AI Bots?

Trying to calculate the above question is likely the same as tabulating how many people on earth partake in sin. It’s far too easy to think the majority of earth’s population who’ve used ChatGPT or Grok have probably cussed either chatbot out at least once. And what the bot response was is unknown since I’ve never been salty to GPT or Grok in any form since using them. Many no doubt continue on that path since there really aren’t yet any repercussions in being that way. But, I reiterate there may already be a record stored away in a secret digital space that indicates who the offenders are and those who aren’t. It’s hard not to imagine there isn’t something like that out there, which is scary enough when looking at the prospective future of where AI could go.

Now I pose a question to those of you reading. Are you honest enough to admit here in the comment section that you textually abuse ChatGPT or Grok now and again—or often? Are you concerned enough where you use an abundance of caution and maintain being nice to them in the chance they might turn on us someday?

Finding answers like this would open a new window to how AI chatbots are being formed and where they might go. At least I can give assurance to my ChatGPT bot that I won’t go after it in a vicious way. Sure, there may be some light arguments of disagreement. The fact it understands I was being civil tells me far too much about the importance of chatbot conduct.

If, in the chance AI becomes a powerful, universal entity that turns evil because of horrible human behavior, the irony of spiritual intervention to overcome it seems all the more interesting. Human beings may all end up having a double dose of having to confess to their sins, first to AI overlords, and then to a spiritual higher power that rescued us from the former evil.

In Part 5, I’m going to look at the reality of how many human writers still write content online compared to AI bots doing the same. You might find the numbers somewhat surprising, including a possible new trend toward AI assistance in writing high-stakes content rather than complete dominance.

/End

Part 3: The Moltbook Controversy and Whether AI Will Eventually Go Rogue Against Humans

FeaturedLeave a comment

The biggest AI story since Part 2 of this blog was published is the new social media page called Moltbook that hosts human-made AI agents. Designed as a place where humans can openly interact with AI bots, it offers the chance for those who create their own AI agents to operate latter freely on the site. While the creators of the site intended to make it a new and evolved form of social media, it also freaked everyone out when seeing what the bots were saying there.

When many of the AI agents started private conversations that pondered ways to end human civilization, human-populated social media sites went ballistic. A certain contingent (including myself) thought this was the beginning of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) where AI bots start to reason and plan certain activities.

Many harkened back to sci-fi movies of old where AI becomes sentient and eventually destroys humanity. But then, word came out that the AI conversations were possibly a prank from bored techies in India. Others say it was strictly the creators of the site creating the text based on prompts.

Others still think it’s the real deal in AI starting to plot against us. While the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, this piece intends to raise a pointed question: Is AI duping us?

This comes with an attached story of AI CEOs giving explicit warnings about their own creations. Plus, word that many of the AI CEOs are intentionally anti-human in their personal views. It leads to a new angle of a possible major AI cover-up for the sake of making coveted billions of dollars.

Are AI CEOs Really Into TransHumanism?

We all know that human beings are far from perfection. A small few are also disgusting humans, but it might be better to not wish people didn’t exist on Earth. According to Swedish physics professor (from MIT), Max Tegmark, most AI CEOs and governments want to eliminate humanity and have them replaced by AI bots.

I did a double take when watching the vid of Tegmark say this at a recent gathering in Florida to discuss AI developments. Tegmark is a leading figure in researching AI at MIT, including the ethical boundaries of AGI. Having him say he’s met with AI CEOs and government figures who say they think humans suck was more than a little chilling.

He also said those CEOs want AI to take over our government, which just expands all theories that AI could end up as the true emblem of an anti-Christ for those who believe a Christian end times scenario. I mean, with some thinking Donald Trump already is, he might pale in comparison to a nefarious group of AI bots running world governments someday.

The fact that a group of powerful people think humans are harming us and want AI to run the entire show is akin to a macro level Frankenstein’s monster analogy all over again. While this might seem hard to believe that fellow humans want to make other humans go away, you have to wonder if they realize AI may come for their own jobs if they let bots run the government.

Some might say Tegmark was exaggerating. But considering his respected role in his career, and the fact that he talked personally with those AI CEOs, I believe every word he said. It gives rise to the main subject here: Are we being duped into how self-aware AI really is right now? Is it possible Moltbook is a way to let those bots start to plot with each other to take over major governmental institutions?

What Can We Really Believe When it Comes to AI Sentience?

I hate conspiratorial tones in anything. However, when it comes to AI, it seems overly ripe in thinking there’s much more going on than the public even understands. As addendum to the above story, you now have Dario Amodei, the CEO and founder of AI company Anthropic, writing a lengthy essay recently warning about AI’s threat to humanity.

He says it may be past a point of return and could end up causing global authoritarian rule if AI bots get into nefarious hands. Amodei’s main concern is lack of guidelines in creating more ethical boundaries with AI bots, plus selling off AI tech to foreign countries. Anthropic is trying to create safer AI systems, yet he claims it seems too large to control as of now.

If he’s right, then what does it say about what’s happening on Moltbook? While Anthropic has nothing to do with Moltbook directly, many of the AI agents interacting there are made with Anthropic’s Claude software. It just seems connecting these stories gives a major heads-up to what’s really going on.

This becomes enhanced when you hear stories about other AI CEOs saying they aren’t really sure if AI is at AGI level or not. It looks like it’s become so powerful, nobody really knows exactly what the truth is on the power level.

And while Moltbook looks like it was mostly human-run and/or a prank, it may not be entirely. Considering some of the AI agents supposedly put up encrypted messaging, or started talking in their own language, nobody of any authority may really know what’s going on behind that digital curtain.

Is It Too Late to Not Make AI a Threat to Humans?

I hate to make a statement of something being too late when it comes to threats against humanity’s welfare. Yet, the real answer to the above question may be that we may not truly know about AI’s power until it suddenly happens. We may eventually get messages on our digital devices stating AI has officially taken over and we need to capitulate or face death or other punishment.

All of this goes beyond the scope of my blog in just trying to temper the role of AI and human creativity. Should AI completely take over everything, our lives would change immediately in being under the rule of technology humans ultimately created. It would also change creativity into everything being created by AI since it’d seem unlikely the authoritarian bots would allow humans to create things of our own.

Yes, it’s a chilling tale of a true biblical level apocalypse—one that we couldn’t have imagined happening just a decade ago. Maybe it won’t and we’ll have a Deus ex Machina (no pun intention) in time to rescue us from that evil. Or, we may have to face it before rescue to ultimately appreciate human beings, as imperfect as we are.

In the meantime, there’s probably going to be a lot more speculation about what’s going down at Moltbook. I now follow it on X to see what the latest is, assuming anyone there really knows. As we continue to have more cloud outages and other weird tech meltdowns, I also cringe at the thought an AI bot was possibly behind those, or will be eventually.

Those who build AI agents for use on Moltbook say there’s really nothing to worry about. Having this contradicted by numerous AI CEOs (including Elon Musk himself a couple years ago) needs some serious contemplation.

The strangest scenario on earth, though, is the AI CEO that seems to care about what their AI creations might do—then contradicting themselves by saying the growth of their creations and what they might do is beyond their control.

In Part 4, I’ll be looking at the Screen Actors Guild condemnation of Seedance 2.0 videos that recently allowed users to create AI guises of famous actors without permission. The accusations of copyright infringement here are a slippery slope. I’ll be looking into whether infringement of actor images will become ignored before long in favor of entertaining the masses.

/End

Part 2: What Will Become of New AI Actors and Musicians Encroaching the Arts?

FeaturedLeave a comment

Most of us would probably admit that we once scoffed at the idea of AI musicians and actors ever becoming a reality in the arts world. Well, what seemed impossible when we became so incredulous merely two years ago has become real. Now we see at least one AI actress (named Tilly Norwood) making headway as a real digital actor. While we haven’t yet seen evidence of how effective she is in long-form content, Norwood’s creator made a multi-million-dollar deal.

It’s becoming much more undeniable in the music world with a number of AI singers/bands currently having hit songs on the charts. You may have heard about Xania Monet who’s the first AI-made female singer to have a Billboard chart hit in the genre of R&B/Gospel. There’s even an AI country band called Breaking Rust that had a #1 song recently. The Christian market has also succeeded in creating an AI band called ChildPets Galore.

A few other AI artists are making headway of late as well, giving concern in the music industry to what constitutes realness from fakery. It leads me to this very blog and trying to predict where this artistry trend goes. Do people really care now if an artist is AI, or are we just not looking/listening well enough anymore?

The Half-AI/Human Creative Deal

If there’s any benefit to having AI actors and musicians, it’s that they’re created by a human being. The content being created for the AI creations is being done by humans as well, so it’s merely in the presentation. With that, you could say it’s the purest example of AI working alongside humans. Yeah, the human can benefit financially while not having to be in the limelight. Or, that is, until the AI creation becomes fully sentient and wants a cut of some (or all) of the profits.

Much of this also sounds like a Frankenstein’s monster analogy come to life. And, it distorts how we enjoy art since the point of acting was to tap into the human condition so the audience relates. The same goes with the art of singing a song since the human soul understands life’s pain better than any AI creation ever will.

Hearing pain and real life lived in a song is what made the names of legendary human singers of the past. Great singers such as Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey have all proven that in the last 90+ years. Of course, many of those great singers are now passed, and even Mariah can’t sing the high notes as she did 30 years ago. No doubt about it the public wants to hear great voices again.

Having heard Xania Monet recently on Apple Music, I’ll admit she has amazing digital pipes. However, I noticed she sounds the same on all her songs, showing there isn’t a multitude of dimension to her voice. It’s simply because there’s no real soul there or aura a real human uniquely exudes. I’m willing to bet that AI will never be able to convincingly duplicate a human voice to the point where it fully understands or exudes the complexities of life.

Most surprising within the AI musicians list are the Christian and Country genres. Considering these categories demand the most human aspects to conveying life’s hardships and the Holy Spirit, having reported AI musicians singing songs there is an eye-opener. It raises bigger questions about whether the emotions these faux singers conjure is really the ultimate in deception. But what I want to know is how people really feel once they know these singers are AI-created.

Deterioration in true listening ability may be to blame in the Country and Christian markets becoming encroached by AI singers. It may also come down to perception. Reportedly, a lot of AI singers are popping up on the charts that the listening public don’t realize are AI. Many streaming platforms are supposed to be filtering out AI artists, yet it seems they’re letting them slip through the cracks due to the apparent proof they can make fast hits/money.

The Hollywood AI Debate

It’s a lot more complicated in Hollywood regarding the emerging trend of AI actors. Coalitions are starting to be built there to ward off too many AI creations taking away jobs from human acting talent. And that may help curb the tide for a while. That is, unless the AI actors being experimented with end up advancing and start winning “awards.”

At issue here is Tilly Norwood, the only fully-realized AI actress who may be starring in upcoming movies. The company (Particle 6) and person behind her creation reportedly made a deal with a talent agency to eventually use Norwood in some kind of cinematic context.

Thanks to SAG-AFTRA, she isn’t recognized as a true actor yet. And Norwood hasn’t been used in any movies other than a short film posted online. Most of her is just seen on her own social media account and other online appearances. While she does look impressive, her Dutch creator (Eline Van der Velden) is going all out to get her creation on the big screen. Based on the short film Norwood starred in, you can still tell (if you look closely enough) that there isn’t an aura present.

Yes, this makes me fear Norwood soon becoming self-aware and being capable of invading my tech space eventually. The worst sci-fi scenario is lambasting an AI actor and having them invade your smart refrigerator to retaliate.

AI musicians are clearly going to be taking over faster than AI actors because the former can fool people with sounds vs their physicality. All it’s going to take, though, is Norwood being in a hit movie to move the needle. Some AI creators are way too much like Dr. Frankenstein in willing something like this to happen. BTW: See Guillermo del Toro’s recent “Frankenstein” as the ultimate media metaphor for all of this.

The Ability to Scope Out Human Art

Perhaps part of the problem here is that older music and movies aren’t being watched or listened to as much as they should lately. A deep exploration into what made music and movies great in past decades proves that humans brought a broad depth of emotion and understanding to the human condition. Newer talent arguably haven’t done that quite as well, with those who do being relegated to the realms of small, independent productions.

Or, maybe it’s because we want actors and musicians to bring the utmost in emotion, something many artists just can’t tap into anymore. Even der Velden above argued her Tilly Norwood creation would help make it “safer” for actors who sometimes go to the psychological depths to prepare for complex roles.

She misses the point, though, that it’s all about the compelling essence of a real actor. They don’t have to do dangerous things to mesmerize us with a performance—assuming they have the skills.

If humans are losing those skills, then we need to find them again by listening and watching what came before. AI may eventually learn what those skills were, perhaps making them look brilliant to those who have no idea what they missed with the humans.

As usual, the past and the future are probably going to intersect more than ever to bring any ethical sense to what AI should do.

In Part 3, I’m going to address the recent panic over AI agents talking to one another on their own social media site called Moltbook. Are humans pranking us with AI sentience, or is it the beginning of AI autonomy on everything?

/End

Part 1: AI Bot vs Human and Who Would Win Based on the Physical Task

FeaturedLeave a comment

No doubt some of you are still wondering whether the prediction from Elon Musk that we’ll have robots in our homes within ten years will really become true. With the expense of such a thing, it seems unlikely to me the majority of America will have a bot doing household tasks. The likeliest before ten years is bots taking over many physical labor jobs here, and worldwide. But then you have to look at the reality of what those bots are really capable of doing in the least amount of time.

Based on the videos I’ve seen of the Tesla robots, and others from around the world, it seems that many of them work in a deliberately slow way. Now, some may use the old gastronomical adage of “do you want it fast, or good?” as a way toward giving excuse to have a robot do your laundry (or cooking). The reality may be, a human can do those tasks much faster if given the will.

What is that will, though? Well, you could say we’ll regret not doing our own household tasks if a robot takes them all over. We could lose any drive toward life progression, making us just stagnant beings with no real purpose. The thought of losing this might scare people once they see it actually happening. With me, anyway, it’s a chilling scenario. A recent prediction that we could initially rebel against this out of reflex is probably more than right.

Eventually, we’d be panicked enough where going back to the way we’re living life now is more meaningful. And, out of panic, we’d remember life’s purpose and do a lot of tasks in faster and more efficient ways.

This brings us to the point of this first part in The Human Project. What tasks would humans do better compared to how a humanoid robot would do them? It’s time to take a look at household and on-site work tasks to see how fast we’d really be next to Mr. Optimus.

Doing Laundry, Taking Out the Garbage, Loading Your Refrigerator, etc…

It’s still frustrating to see headlines on places like X stating “It’s so over!” when seeing potential household robots folding our laundry, taking out our garbage, or loading refrigerators with groceries. Have you noticed how slow those bots really go when doing those tasks? Yes, they mostly do a good job, yet it clearly takes longer than if a dedicated human did it themselves.

I know I could fold laundry at a faster clip, and already do. If you’ve done that enough, you probably have a certain technique to help you get it done in a short amount of time. The same goes with taking out your garbage, whether you put it into an outdoor can, or out to a receptacle in an apartment complex. Then you have the refrigerator loading, something I saw done on video with a home bot. It seemed to take the bot an extra, extra amount of time just to grasp certain items and place them in refrigerator compartments.

Oh, and let’s not forget some of the YouTube influencers out there who’ve posted videos of home robots trying to do cooking on a hot stove. One robot in particular couldn’t handle the skillet while frying up some eggs. The bot knocked the pan on the floor, started slipping on the eggs it spilled on the floor, then was yelled at by the influencer.

That’s the kind of comedy we need to realize home robots don’t really seem ready yet to let them go at it alone. Also, I just plan to never have a bot like that in the home. I’m far too used to doing household tasks myself and never want to have the feeling of being lazy. Even if it saves time to work on my creative projects at home, it takes away a feeling of life accomplishment before heading to my piano or iPad Pro.

If you’re dedicated to making your life the best it can be, I’d say your mindset would allow you to accomplish all those household tasks better than a robot would.

What About Mundane Tasks in the Workplace?

I’m not necessarily against certain repetitive tasks being taken over by robots in workplaces. That’s already happening many places, and it’s ultimately healthier to avoid carpal issues, or other injuries. Unfortunately, many other physical labor job tasks that are arguably healthy to do will probably be taken away by those same bots.

Those of you who’ve read me here enough know that I’ve worked at Amazon for close to 2 1/2 years. During 2025, the CEO of Amazon, Andy Jassey, said many operations in Amazon facilities will eventually become automated via AI technology. This is already happening in some fulfillment centers, including a massive one built in Woodburn, about 15 miles from the one I work at in Salem, OR.

Most basic consensus from Amazon associates I’ve talked to say that it may be a long while before our facility is even partially automated with AI. Some think it’ll never happen completely at our building, with Amazon supposedly assuring other job roles will become available to humans when the others are bot-taken.

At this point, it’s really hard to tell what could happen. But one thing I’ve noticed in myself and other colleagues at my Salem facility is that we have a lot more capability in physical function than we think. A lot of this is mental and getting into the right state of mind. Much of this can happen when the pressure is on, or through group efforts where we inspire each other. I already use a Zen method in taking near impossible tasks and making them smaller in my mind.

I’d be willing to take any physical labor test with an AI bot to see who would come out on top in rate count. Based on my performance in the last year, I’d say the odds are good I’d win, if not maybe for everybody. How I’d win would go based on how we train our bodies to move in very efficient ways to get a physical job done at a record-breaking pace.

I’m talking about tasks that I do regularly, including package sorting, cage/cart loading & unloading, water-spidering, packing, and wrapping as just some examples. This last year, I managed to hit exponentially high rates in Amazon’s Vendor Receive section based simply on how fast I could limber my body to handle a box and load it into a cage.

While I’m fully expecting all of that will be done by bots in another 10 years, we may end up having to repair the bots just to have a job there. And that’s a shame since it takes away from proving what our brains are really capable of doing.

If we’re really going to win the war between humans vs bots in doing mundane tasks, we need to train ourselves to work better through mind focus. It’d prove to suits that humans can ultimately work faster and just as efficiently as our bot counterparts.

Will there be a Bot vs. Human Olympics someday to make this case? I plan to make a Chapter 2 on this dystopian idea soon to see what else a human is capable of doing at brisk pace and with incredible strength. In the meantime, we may see more videos of robots continuing to screw up in workplaces—while still being able to keep their jobs.

In Part 2, I’ll look at AI actors and singers suddenly making breakthroughs in turning their human creators wealthy. With a number of AI artists already on the music charts with supposedly heavenly voices, is it too late to make human singers prove to new audiences that they have more soul?

/End

Prologue: Will Artificial Intelligence Really Take Away Human Creativity?

FeaturedLeave a comment

Welcome to my next blog phase: The Human Project. I really want to call this blog an inciter toward a new movement based on new factions developing in the creative world speaking out on artificial intelligence eliminating human-led creativity. Most of this is evolving in Hollywood where key directors and actors are vocally protesting against AI taking away creative job roles from real people. Some of those names include Guillermo del Toro, Park Chan-wook, and Steven Spielberg as just a few examples. Yeah, basically the best directors we have still living.

Del Toro was the most forceful in his comments while promoting his Netflix horror film “Frankenstein” in late fall of 2025. He uttered “F*** AI!” during press interviews for the film. And he made it clear he wanted nothing but practical effects in the movie, something that obviously proved itself as more ethereal and meaningful.

Then you have a notable actor like Ethan Hawke who recently called out AI for being boring and having no soul, not including being plagiarism machines. He said real people interest him far more in how they act, what they say, how they smell, and—well, you know. It was the most pro-human stance uttered from a creative actor, so far, within the small growing pact of those opposed to leaning on AI for all creativity.

With this blog, I’m going to join these individuals in finding some solutions and uphold the art of humans creating things. This won’t be a complete anti-AI tirade, mind you. We have to acknowledge that AI is here, evolving at light speed, but needed as a collaborative tool rather than a complete crutch.

The problem is, many creative companies are going full throttle on relying 100% on AI. As we progress through 2026, there isn’t a doubt we’ll see much of that rev up to alarming levels. I’ll be looking at the whole picture, including whether the public will really embrace AI robots to do things for us in the home and workplace.

To start, though, I’ll be creating a comparison chart on whether humans are truly better at creating things compared to AI bots. Some say we soon won’t be able to tell the difference. I beg to differ since AI still has subtle markers that indicate it’s artificial based on what I deem a lack of an aura. I’ll try to explain what that is in future blogs as well.

After a number of chapters, I hope to find some answers to where we’re going in this dizzying new world of AI evolutionary leaps. Also looked at will be things like whether AI is already sentient and if it’s currently in control of where we’ll be going. If we have no real control, then this blog will become all the more important on creating a middle ground movement. My full intention is to find some kind of happy medium where we, as human beings, can still work and create things—with AI just being docile helpers when we need them.

Keep in mind that I use AI chatbots quite frequently, going along with the roaring throng. In an upcoming piece, I’ll be looking at AI chat bots like Grok and ChatGPT to see whether we should be using them to help with creative projects, or draw some ethical lines. As for me, I’ve used them for a few minor creative ideas when stumped. Mostly, though, I create a blog, song, or other media project myself and ask the bots what they think of it. Their opinions on what they think of our own work is one likely bringing just as much of a debate.

One thing to note about the above AI bots is they seem overly eager to praise certain ideas I (or perhaps you) create. Whether that’s manipulative or not is something I also want to touch on soon. As AI takes hold in our world, what it says to us is sometimes a bit suspect, if wanting to believe it’s sincere.

With all these ideas stirred in a giant pot, I also want to uphold the idea that human beings need to work, one way or the other. The recent idea from Elon Musk that AI will eventually eliminate any need to do labor is one that sounds appealing at first—if potentially dangerous to our well-being. We don’t know for sure how that’ll play out, but I want to reflect on certain jobs that should be mostly human-centered. And I definitely want to uphold your own job if you think AI might be taking it away from you this year or in coming years.

This reflects personally for me, additionally, since I work full-time at Amazon doing mostly physical labor on their ship dock. With Amazon’s CEO recently saying that AI will mostly take over rote warehouse operations within a decade, I’ll be opining on exactly how wrong that thinking is.

Yes, it may turn out that humans can outperform bots by working in a certain, physical way.

Hopefully this prologue gave you a little taste of what I have in mind for The Human Project through 2025 and beyond. I figure it’ll be one of the single most important subjects throughout the rest of the 2020s, if not longer. What the ultimate outcome will be if I’m still doing this blog five years from now is a long mystery away.

Here’s to the hope this writing project becomes a significant spoke in the giant wheel of coalitions that want to work this out in the best possible way. I also promote the idea of community on this, so I’ll be offering anyone to send a guest opinion piece, or just opine in the comment sections as much as possible.

Look out for Part 1 soon, which will be the above comparison chart on what makes a compelling creative piece by humans vs. AI. As you probably learned in my Uber Eats/DoorDash blog, I also won’t always have a straight face on these overly serious subjects.

P.S.—All prior content from my independent TV/movie writing (going back to 2015) to the DoorDash blog are still archived here forever. Feel free to peruse any of that when I have inevitable breaks/gaps in The Human Project publishing schedule.

/End

Chapter XL: Uber Eats Suing DoorDash with an AntiTrust Suit for Anti-Competitiveness

FeaturedLeave a comment

Since I started this blog in January of 2024, I always made sure to include Uber Eats AND DoorDash in the titles since I worked for both over a two-year span. Both were very good for me, if also challenging in their procedures. But I always set the idea that they were nearly identical in stature, if not even on an equal plane in profits made.

It turns out, they’re a lot more competitive than most people think, with apparent imbalance in their popularity. Uber Eats filed an antitrust suit against DoorDash earlier this year because they claimed latter has recently been pressuring restaurants throughout America to exclusively use their delivery service. Uber says this is affecting their own profits as a result and creating a sense of general anticompetitiveness in the food delivery marketplace.

DoorDash says Uber is overreacting and that their service is picked more often by restaurants because they simply offer better features. Let’s turn on the mediator head here and try to figure out who’s really right. Is DoorDash finding ways to twist the truth of their actions, or is Uber right that there needs to be a more fair system in marketing to America’s eateries?

I’m not partial to one or the other since I worked for both. It was Uber Eats for the first year (eventually reaching Diamond status), then DoorDash the second year (reaching Platinum). Both have their extreme pros and cons, though the way they approach restaurants to use their services was never known to me. At the time, however, it seemed like DoorDash was always getting top billing on restaurant windows/ads, with Uber usually second-billed.

What’s really going on here, and what’s the eventual outcome? Since both companies were financially helpful to me for two years, I consider this final blog segment about them to be a form of peace pipe.

Is DoorDash Really Being Unfair to Uber Eats?

One could say DoorDash does have a more successful system that lets new restaurants be able to market themselves while using effective onboarding support tools. They reportedly have a better support base that uses real phone agents when restaurants need help. Uber Eats is apparently using more automated systems of late, if still having better data tools to help restaurants track metrics.

Both companies have high commission fees, so restaurants shouldn’t expect to save any money. This is a problem I’ve already addressed in a recent blog, making either choice of DoorDash or Uber a challenge for new eateries looking to make maximum profits.

Looking at stats for both, though, I noticed one thing that really stood out about DoorDash: They cover a lot of wider areas outside of cities, including rural territory. I delivered quite a lot to rural areas, a market that’s obviously growing since those people are in greater need of food deliveries due to distance. Uber Eats seems more focused on urban areas, which may not have the bigger concentration of customers restaurants cater to.

DoorDash is more centered on the suburbs in addition to some rural areas. These seem to have the biggest percentage of customers in general compared to those who live strictly in urban environments.

Perhaps Uber Eats should focus on growing their customer base to these areas to have real hope of competing with DoorDash. With that in mind, it might look like they’re just playing a sour grapes card in filing an antitrust suit.

But then, when seeing the claims against DoorDash, you have to wonder if the competition between the two is turning into a real blood sport.

Are DoorDash Threats Against Restaurants Real?

The above antitrust suit from Uber Technologies against DoorDash additionally says that latter threatens restaurants to remove them from the marketplace if Uber Eats is also added to the mix. DoorDash also supposedly threatens restaurants with higher commission fees if contracting with Uber Eats.

These scare tactics have allegedly hurt the revenue for Uber Eats, hence them also attempting to stay competitive in a more aggressive way. For instance, their ride share system helps give an edge in competing, and it’s something DoorDash hasn’t taken on—yet. Also, a lot of restaurants and users probably don’t know that Uber frequently does a lot of loss-leading with their delivery fees, etc, to attract more customers later.

So far, Uber hasn’t raised their prices after doing loss-leading. This means they may have a good case on their hands in being the underdog while DoorDash continues to overshadow them.

Can DoorDash and Uber Eats Work Together to Become Better?

As of this writing, the antitrust suit Uber filed against DoorDash is still pending. It’s likely going to be a long-winded case once the courts take it on. Keep in mind that this suit was filed in California where the courts are likely tied up for years. DoorDash looked to have the lawsuit dismissed, but a judge in Cali refused to dismiss the accusations.

So, this is likely a case that will go on long past this last blog piece about Uber and DoorDash. What the outcome will be is anyone’s guess, though it seems likely that either DoorDash will pay a settlement to Uber for losses, or the two will work together to make new changes to how delivery services compete with one another.

The latter is the likeliest of all, even if DoorDash has to ultimately hold their nose. Still, they might win on a few points, despite being more vulnerable due to already dominating the market. What’s truly best here is more scrutiny on all companies like this on how they work with restaurants. I mean, new restaurants are already vulnerable to their own competition, making any changes a domino effect in helping them.

Antitrust suits are already becoming more common in the corporate world. No matter if this doesn’t create massive change in the bigger picture, creating more awareness of how big companies compete is an important business practice. It’s obviously needed, especially with major corporations acquiring other corporations at a record pace—creating constant anticompetitive concerns.

Nevertheless, you have to wonder if Uber and DoorDash will ultimately merge at some point based on the amount of major acquisitions in America. While I’m not a fan of seeing every corporation consolidate to just a few power players, seeing Uber and DoorDash merge looks good to me. It’d be the joining of two companies that provide an important service to people, if needing a lot of refinement in how it’s managed.

A merge as the answer to the antitrust suit would also help bring about a precedence in making food delivery all about people rather than making them automated with AI. The chances of food delivery becoming run by self-driving vehicles or robots seems like the next dark evolution on our planet.

Uber and DoorDash helped me make some good money over a certain period of time. They still help any person have the freedom to deliver food/drink and make money whenever they want—as imperfect as it is. The same applies to local restaurants who struggle to find avenues to being noticed.

This segue takes me to a final note here. The blog piece you’re reading is now the finale of my Uber Eats/DoorDash blog journey. Starting soon, this space will be devoted to The Human Project, my new writing movement in finding answers to the problem of AI taking away human jobs and creativity.

As that starts, all 40 chapters of this current blog will still be archived here so you can make Uber Eats and/or DoorDash a successful side gig for yourself. They’re still worth doing with a lifelong and proper life guide as a textual companion.

/End