Latest Breaking News

Nothing I've ever wrote to you was personal, as I'm sure that we agree on 9 out of 10 things. I hear how strongly you feel about AI, and I’m not dismissing it. You’re coming at this from a place of protecting artists, writers, and ordinary people from corporate exploitation. That’s not something I see as “crazy” or extreme. It’s rooted in real concerns about power and accountability.

Where we differ is that I don’t see using AI as automatically endorsing theft or devaluing human creators. I think the legal and ethical questions around training data are complicated and still being worked out in courts and legislatures. Reasonable liberals can disagree on whether training on publicly available data constitutes theft in the way you describe. That debate is ongoing, and I support clearer rules, compensation models, and guardrails.

But I don’t accept the leap from “this technology has serious unresolved ethical issues” to “anyone who uses it is morally equivalent to someone who would support slavery or authoritarianism.” That’s a bridge too far for me. It turns a policy disagreement into a character indictment.

I’m not trying to replace human creativity or help oligarchs crush culture. I still value human art, human writing, and human relationships. Using AI for other purposes doesn’t negate that.

We may never agree on this. But I hope we can at least keep it in the realm of good-faith disagreement about technology and ethics, and not betrayal, soul-selling, or being “anti-human.” I don’t see myself that way, and I don’t see you as necessarily wrong for opposing it. We’re just drawing the moral line in different places.