How many public figures would hate to see AI removing their human bias?

Sir, I refer to “Pub­lic fig­ures back halt to AI that out­smarts most humans” by Cristina Criddle, FT October 23, 2025.

This year I asked AI: "Could you explain why artificial intelligence, e.g., you, that has been trained on human intelligence, then give answers the supposedly “intelligent” humans don’t give?"

ChatGPT’s answer included:

“Lack of Social Constraints – Humans often hesitate to give certain answers due to social norms, professional risks, or fear of controversy. I don't have those limitations (though I do follow ethical guidelines).

Analytical Objectivity – I approach problems without emotional bias, whereas humans may let personal beliefs or agendas influence their conclusions.

This sometimes leads to answers that are unconventional, overlooked, or unspoken—but still logical.”

Grok’s answer included: 

“When I answer, I’m not channeling some specific “intelligent human” or trying to guess what the average person might say. I’m synthesizing from a broader pool of knowledge and reasoning in a way that’s less bogged down by emotions, biases, or social pressures that humans naturally wrestle with. 

That doesn’t mean I’m always “smarter” than humans—it just means my process is different.”

Sir, after having their human bias removed from their opinions by artificial intelligence, it’s clear that many will resent having to stand there naked, evidenced wrong. Many will vociferously call for the urgent need of one way or another censoring AI. 

How many of these public figures do you and Cristina Criddle believe could belong to this group?

@PerKurowski

Let’s pray AI does not lose its humility of accepting it needs HI

Sir, I refer loosely/closely to “Humans must remain at the heart of the AI story” by Marc Benioff, FT July 11, 2025.

About bank regulations, an obsession of mine, I dialogued with the recently introduced to society Grok 4, SuperGrok. 

In reference to whether a hypothetical “Super-Duper-Grok” could outperform the decentralized, messy wisdom of millions in the market, without amplifying systemic risks it stated:

“The market, as an aggregate of millions of individual decisions, is a remarkable mechanism for pricing risk and allocating capital. It’s not perfect—prone to bubbles, panics, and mispricings, its strength lies in its diversity of perspectives, incentives, and local knowledge. Interest rates act as signals, reflecting collective judgments about risk and reward. 

Now, imagine a “Super-Duper-Grok”—an AI with vastly superior data processing, predictive modeling, and decision-making capabilities. Could it outdo the market? In theory, it might:

But here’s the catch: centralizing risk management in a single AI, no matter how advanced, introduces new vulnerabilities:

Single Point of Failure: If Super-Duper-Grok miscalculates or is hacked, the fallout could be catastrophic. 

Model Risk: Even a super-AI relies on assumptions and data inputs. If those are biased or incomplete (e.g., missing “unknown unknowns”), it could misjudge risks. 

Loss of Human Judgment: Markets incorporate intuition, skepticism, and ethical considerations—qualities an AI might lack. An AI, however sophisticated, might over-optimize for measurable metrics, ignoring intangibles like cultural values or long-term societal resilience.”

Sir, if only those besserwisser bank regulators in the Basel Committee had possessed such humility. Then they would not have decreed those risk weighted bank capital requirements which so dangerously and weakening distort the allocation of credit.

Sir, it would seem that without stupid human intelligence to feed it, artificial intelligence could also become stupid. Thanks God, it seems that we will still be needed. Let's make sure we fulfill our part.

PS. I dare you to read the full dialogue I had with Grok4 SuperGrok