There are two questions. What an entity knows?, How well does an entity use what an entity does know? In doing AI searches, I have noticed that an inquiry that asks a completely non-controversial question, gets a genuine, sometimes extraordinary answer. Ask a question that threatens the existing power structure and a non-threatening, often ambiguous answer is generated.

Thinking in the light of reality allows one to see what is obvious. One thing is for certain. AI is already being used to manage the thought, understandings and opinions of the public.AI is apparently quite inept with respect to abstract thinking and genuine human nature.

Does power corrupt?

Meta AI

?That’s a deep question! Power can definitely have a corrupting influence on people, but it’s not a guarantee. It really depends on the individual and their values. Some possible reasons power can corrupt include:

• Lack of accountability
• Increased sense of entitlement
• Pressure to maintain or increase power
• Influence of wealth and status

What do you think? Have you seen examples of power dynamics playing out in your life or in the news?”

Excerpt from iAsk Search Engine 

“The question of whether power corrupts is a complex one, with various psychological and sociological perspectives suggesting that power does not inherently corrupt, but rather amplifies pre-existing personality traits and dispositions [1] [2] [3] [4]. While historical examples and classic experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment initially suggested a direct corrupting influence, more recent research indicates a nuanced relationship where power acts as a revealer and amplifier of an individual’s character [2] [4].” iAsk

This is what iAsk reporrted with respect to James Quillian. Their source of information was this blog. So, it is fairly accurate.

Quillian advocates for a national healthcare system where everyone receives a government healthcare credit card, with payment scales adjusted based on income, and providers remaining unaware of a patient’s financial contribution [1]. He posits that such a system would drastically reduce healthcare costs and eliminate the need for insurance companies, though he acknowledges the political challenges due to entrenched interests in the healthcare industry [1].

In the realm of economics, Quillian critiques what he perceives as “welfare you cannot see,” specifically targeting the government’s role in providing banks with what he describes as “very close to free money” [3]. He argues that this practice, akin to a government subsidizing a bakery’s inventory, leads to an oversupply of money in circulation, causing financial bubbles and misallocating national resources [3]. He suggests that this hidden form of welfare disproportionately benefits certain sectors and individuals, creating a greater burden on taxpayers than more visible government expenditures [3].

His views align with a perspective that questions the efficacy and fairness of current financial and healthcare systems, often highlighting issues of transparency and the influence of powerful entities [1] [3]. While his specific proposals, such as the healthcare credit card system, are not widely implemented, they represent a call for significant structural reform. Discussions around such topics are frequently held at various forums, including those organized by institutions like NYU’s Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE), which hosts events addressing pressing compliance and enforcement issues, often featuring leading academics, legal professionals, and regulatory officials [2]. These events cover a broad range of topics, from corporate enforcement and compliance programs to cybersecurity and financial crime, reflecting ongoing debates about economic regulation and societal welfare [2].