How does AI affect us?

ChiroDoc

Senior Member
I am an AI skeptic. Having said that, I was pleased to read some commentary by the great Tom Woods, PhD (The Tom Woods Show: History, Economics, Sanity) which briefly poses observations about how AI affects us personally. Perhaps some of you would enjoy reading them:

"I love technology because the less drudgery we have to do, the more human a life we can live.

What is the distinguishing feature of human beings? Reason, said Aristotle. The more we are freed from the kind of tasks even a domesticated animal might do, the more we can be engaged in genuinely human activities.

But being human is more than just exercising reason. Technology can save me valuable time that I can otherwise spend having irreplaceable human experiences building my relationships with friends and family. Or it gives me extra time to express my creativity.

You all know I have a quirky view of AI: if it makes my life easier (which in some ways it has), I'm all for it.

If it frees us up to have time to express ourselves creatively, great. But then why would we want AI to also do the creative work for us? That would in turn free us up to do...what, exactly?
[bolding mine]

Sit around and be entertained and edified by robots?

But enough about AI: I know I have intelligent readers who can respond to what I've said with perfectly sound and rational replies.

So instead, think of this: that device in your pocket can in principle be the most liberating thing in the world, if used correctly.

But for many people, it's become an albatross.

You can now be on call at all times. The work-life balance gets blurred. Microsoft has begun to speak of the "infinite workday."

(That sounds awesome.)

You would think that with the technology we have now, our lives would be more tranquil, less subject to disturbance, and more things would be automated, leaving us less frenetic and more content.

Is that how most people's lives seem to you?

Just because we have the technological capability to do something doesn't mean we should do it.

We had "Zoom school" during Covid because we had the technological capability to do it. Had that capability not existed, it is very likely school would simply have resumed.

And because we have the technological capability for people to be able to be semi-hooked into work all the time, that's what a lot of people's lives look like right now.

Wasn't all this technology supposed to free us?

Yet a Martian visiting Earth would be convinced that for many of us, the devices had become our masters, and we their slaves.

This is not a recipe for a good life. It sure as hell isn't how you want your children to live.

Well, as someone who went through most of his life a nervous wreck because he worked all the time, I'm happy to report that I've cracked the code on all this stuff.

Nowadays, when someone starts an email to me with "I know you're busy," I appreciate their consideration but in fact I have things in order and I'm not especially busy.

In short:

We are surrounded by technological marvels our ancestors could scarcely have believed, and somehow we've found ourselves serving them, instead of letting them serve us.
..."

It can be acknowledged that AI has beneficial uses in certain applications. And we are likely in a transition period in that respect. But its increasingly ubiquitous use --especially by naive individuals-- seems at this point to simply be further dumbing down much of our population, which in turn inhibits their ability to think and reason.

I look at AI as I do the Grand Canyon: the view is fine, but don't stand too close to the edge.
 
I'd never heard of Tom Woods, PhD, so I used AI to give me a bit of his background. This is what it gave me...

Thomas Woods, PhD, is primarily classified as a Rothbardian libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, though critics and some historians have labeled his work as "far right" or "neo-Confederate" due to certain historical interpretations and past affiliations.​
The "far right" label is generally applied to him in three specific contexts:​
1. Historical Interpretations​
Critics, including some mainstream historians and conservative commentators, argue that his historical work—particularly The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History—is filtered through a "far-right dogma".​
  • Neo-Confederacy: The book has been accused of whitewashing the role of slavery in the Civil War and portraying the Confederacy in an overly sympathetic light.
  • Revisionism: Critics like Max Boot have called his work "morally and factually incorrect" for its defense of states' rights to secede and its portrayal of certain Southern leaders as "enlightened".
2. Past Affiliations​
A major point of contention is his role as a founding member of the League of the South in 1994, a group now designated as a white supremacist hate group by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.​
  • His Defense: Woods has since distanced himself from the group, stating it was originally a "decentralist" academic organization that later took a "vicious" turn toward racism and antisemitism.
  • Criticism: Some observers, including writers at Reason Magazine, have argued that his earlier writings for the group align with their radical ideologies and that he has refused to fully repudiate his past statements.
3. Core Political Beliefs​
Woods describes himself as a "Jeffersonian democrat" and a "pragmatic minarchist," focusing on anti-interventionism, free markets, and radical decentralization.​
  • Nullification: He strongly advocates for state nullification—the idea that states can reject federal laws they deem unconstitutional—which is often viewed as a radical or far-right legal theory.
  • Immigration: He has also written in opposition to open borders, arguing from a property-rights perspective that immigration can infringe on the rights of current homeowners.
While Woods remains a highly popular figure within the Ron Paul and Mises Institute circles, his work continues to be a subject of intense debate between those who see him as a consistent champion of liberty and those who view his perspectives as aligning with extremist right-wing ideologies.​
 
What do your comments have to do with the man's observations about the effects of AI?
I asked AI.... :)

Thomas Woods, PhD (host of The Tom Woods Show), has addressed the topic of AI primarily through the lens of productivity, individual strategy, and its broader societal implications.

Based on recent discussions, here are his primary perspectives:

Strategic Use and Adoption

In a 2025 episode of his podcast (Ep. 2625), Woods explored "How (and Whether) to Use AI." Alongside guest Jack Spirko, the discussion focused on:




  • Avoiding Obsolescence: Navigating the spectrum of reactions to AI—from total rejection to the concern that those who do not embrace the technology will be left behind.

  • Practical Utility: Sorting through how individuals can realistically apply AI in their professional and personal lives rather than just viewing it as a passing trend.

Economic and Libertarian Framing

While Woods focuses heavily on history and Austrian economics, he often frames technological shifts like AI within his broader libertarian philosophy:

  • Market Decentralization: Woods generally favors technologies that allow individuals to bypass centralized institutions.
  • Skepticism of Regulation: Consistent with his views on other industries, he often expresses skepticism toward government attempts to regulate emerging tech, viewing such efforts as potential "usurpations of power."

Distinguishing the "Woods"

It is worth noting that another prominent figure, Geoff Woods (author of The AI-Driven Leader), also appears in similar circles (such as the WealthAbility podcast with Tom Wheelwright). While Thomas Woods (PhD) focuses on the historical and economic "big picture," Geoff Woods focuses on the specific mechanics of using AI as a "thought partner" for business growth
 

Latest Posts

Back
Top