Author: Shane

Huamani, Kaitlyn. “Trump’s use of AI images further erodes public trust, experts say.” PBS News, 27 Jan. 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trumps-use-of-ai-images-further-erodes-public-trust-experts-say. Accessed 27 Mar. 2026. 

Kaitlyn Huamani’s article raises concerns among experts and the public around how the government and other sources of news use generative artificial intelligence to create misleading digital content. The primary example that Huamani highlights is President Donald Trump posting an AI-generated image of a political opponent, Nekima Levy Armstrong, to make it appear as though she’s crying when she wasn’t. Administration officials and allies claim that these images are not any different from other popularized internet content like memes or political cartoons. However, experts on digital media and communications say that this behavior makes it difficult for the public to know what content to trust. There is also some discussion of why some internet users may feel drawn to misleading AI-generated content based on their political views.

As AI becomes politicized, I think it’s important to keep in mind how the public perceives AI. It is also important to stay aware of how the AI is being used by powerful people to influence or manipulate the public. Its uses and the motivations that guide users help us understand that this technology is not inherently neutral.

Sanders, Bernie. “I spoke to AI agent Claude.” YouTube, uploaded by Senator Bernie Sanders, 19 Mar. 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AtWdeu_G0. Accessed 20 Mar. 2026. 

In this video, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders sits down to have a conversation with Anthropic’s AI chatbot Claude. Sanders prompts Claude with questions, and the chatbot replicates a woman’s voice in its voice mode responses. The topics of interest that Sanders brings up include the impact of AI on privacy, the way AI uses Americans’ data, and whether a moratorium on AI data centers would be appropriate. Claude produces thorough, presumably factual, and seemingly “honest” answers to the senator’s questions. For Sanders, the conversation seems to highlight concerns about the lack of regulation of in the AI industry and how the democratic process is affected as a result.

This video captured my interest because of how it mixes political messaging with a demonstration of how AI works. Throughout Sanders’s interaction with Claude, he seems able to steer the chatbot toward responses that align with his views. AI’s prevalence, it seems, can be used as a political tool in more ways than one. It opens up potential further research on the relationship between artificial intelligence and political propaganda.

Bregman, Rutger. “Quit ChatGPT: right now! Your subscription is bankrolling authoritarianism.” The Guardian, 4 Mar. 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/04/quit-chatgpt-subscription-boycott-silicon-valley. Accessed 12 Mar. 2026. 

Author and historian Rutger Bregman uses this article to put forth his views on a developing consumer boycott movement aimed at OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. Bregman describes how the boycott calls for cancellation of subscriptions to ChatGPT. The motivation behind the boycott is political in nature as it’s been revealed that OpenAI’s president donated $25 million to a Trump-aligned Super PAC and that it’s initiated a separate PAC (to the tune of $125 million) to lobby against state regulation of artificial intelligence. There is some discussion of how OpenAI is currently being favored by the Trump administration over other leading AI companies, particularly in the context of recent disputes over AI use in military operations. Bregman expresses optimism about the potential effectiveness of the “QuitGPT” campaign to send a message about the dangers of OpenAI’s influence. 

My interest in this story stems from thinking further about the politicization of AI and how it intersects with existing power structures. As AI’s prevalence in our lives increases, it’s important to consider how decisions are made about the technology, who holds the power to make those decisions, and what motivates those decision-makers. For those hoping to push back against these power structures, the success or failure of protest movements becomes relevant.

Ranganathan, Aruna, and Xingqi Maggie Ye. “AI Doesn’t Reduce Work–It Intensifies It.” Harvard Business Review, 9 Feb. 2026, https://hbr.org/2026/02/ai-doesnt-reduce-work-it-intensifies-it. Accessed 6 Mar. 2026. 

In this article from Ranganathan and Ye, the authors describe their takeaways from an ongoing research study into how AI implementation has impacted the work habits at a technology company. Framing their findings in generally upbeat and positive tones, Ranganathan and Ye advise caution for organizations who are hoping to see increased productivity as a result of employees leveraging generative artificial intelligence for work tasks. The authors note the ways in which AI use is intensifying work: it expands workers’ tasks beyond the original scope of their jobs, increases pressure to multitask, and encourages working beyond normal hours or without breaks. While these changes seem to be driven by employees and may look positive from a leader standpoint, there are concerns that these trends could lead to burnout and long-term harm to an organization’s workforce. As a result, Ranganathan and Ye suggest implementing practices to ensure responsible and sustainable AI use. 

This article reminds me that because of AI’s newness in many areas of our lives, we should approach claims about its capabilities and effects with skepticism. It is common to hear that AI will increase productivity and efficiency in both our personal and professional lives. While this article does not contradict that claim entirely, it advises us to proceed with caution and put limits in place to prevent the technology from interfering with work-life balance.

Richter, Hani. “From churches to chatbots: How AI is fusing with religion.” Reuters, 9 Feb. 2026, https://www.reuters.com/technology/ai-and-us/pulpits-chatbots-how-ai-is-fusing-with-religion-2026-02-07/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2026. 

This article from Hani Richter offers an overview of how different religious practitioners, leaders, and scholars are approaching artificial intelligence and its use in faith and worship. Richter’s article primarily focuses on examining different perspectives on the topic of AI and religion; it heavily relies on quotes from laypeople, academics, and clergy to do so. There are some religious leaders who have experimented with AI to help them write sermons and attract people to their places of worship, as well as followers of various faiths who have used it to learn more about their religion or even hold conversations with chatbots who mimic spiritual guides (including the Buddha and Jesus Christ). According to Richter, opinion is divided on whether it is appropriate to use artificial intelligence in the context of worship. Some worry about inaccuracies and violating religious codes while others see opportunities to expand the reach of their faith.

I found this article interesting because it examines how AI is impacting an area of life and society that we might not usually consider being influenced by technology. As we are asked to form opinions and develop perspectives regarding the use of AI in the workplace and education, it seems that there may be no domains remaining that won’t be in some way changed by this technology. Given how intricately linked religion is to human culture and identity, this will be yet another important consideration in the debate over ethical AI use.

Liedtke, Michael, and David Klepper. “What to know about the clash between the Pentagon and Anthropic over military’s AI use.” AP News, 28 Feb. 2026, https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-pentagon-ai-dario-amodei-hegseth-0c464a054359b9fdc80cf18b0d4f690c. Accessed 1 Mar. 2026. 

Here, Liedtke and Klepper detail a recent development in the relationship between the U.S. Department of Defense and the AI company Anthropic. After Anthropic refused to meet demands from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that raised concerns about their technology being used for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, the Department of Defense ended its $200 million contract with them. The legal rationale for Hegseth’s move, as Liedtke and Klepper report, is that Anthropic has been labeled as a “risk to the nation’s defense supply chain” (an unusual designation for an American company). The authors of this article go on to discuss what the implications of this will be for Anthropic’s business model and how competitors like OpenAI have benefitted by entering into contract with the Department of Defense in Anthropic’s absence. There is also some discussion of how this standoff highlights safety concerns regarding AI use by the military. 

With artificial intelligence continuing to advance with little regulation and few guardrails, I find reports like this important for keeping us aware of where there may be risks in its use. Given that even a tech CEO like Anthropic’s Dario Amodei (who stands to lose considerable profit from conflict with the Pentagon) is willing to risk a loss of business over safety concerns with his technology, I think we all can afford to pay more attention to this issue. The article demonstrates how potential harms from AI use are not inherent in the technology but may also come from the users.

Gaines, Lee V. “To keep AI out of her classroom, this high school English teacher went analog.” NPR, 28 Jan. 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5631779/ai-schools-teachers-students. Accessed 28 Jan. 2026. 

Gaines provides readers with a timely account of Chanea Bond, a high school English teacher in Fort Worth, Texas, and her efforts to limit student AI use in her courses. In addition to detailing Bond’s reasoning behind the move, which primarily centers on a desire to build authentic critical thinking capabilities in her students, Gaines also provides a summary of the methods being used. These include mandated handwritten assignments, daily writing to develop student voice, and more frequent feedback throughout longer writing processes. The article also gathers feedback from students, several of which feel positively toward their teacher’s decision. Gaines also offers a counter perspective by discussing how other teachers, districts, and even government entities are implementing or encouraging AI use in education. 

As AI and the debate around it becomes more pressing in society at large and in school settings in particular, I find stories like this important for framing the argument and describing the perspectives and approaches that people are taking toward it. Because it centers the real, lived experiences of students and teachers, the article puts a human face on what can feel at times like an abstract issue. Questions about how AI should be implemented in educational environments need to involve consultation with the experts who are directly engaging in the day to day work.

Conger, Kate. “California Investigates Elon Musk’s xAI Over Sexualized Images.” The New York Times, 14 Jan. 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/technology/grok-ai-x-investigation-california.html. Accessed 19 Jan. 2026.

In Conger’s article, she reports on the recent concern over the AI chatbot Grok and how it has enabled users on the X social media platform to create non consensual sexualized pictures of real people (predominantly, it seems, of women and children). Rob Banta, the attorney general for the state of California, is investigating whether xAI (founded by its CEO Elon Musk) is in violation of state law. Conger details similar investigations in other countries and outlines the penalties California may impose. She also makes note of comments from Musk and xAI official statements that claim there are internal limits, regulations, and policies in place to prevent Grok from creating “illegal” content.

I find the situation described in this article interesting as it outlines the tensions between the power of AI companies, the rapid growth in the capabilities of AI tools, and the void in established law to regulate these tools. While Conger maintains an overall objective tone in her piece, the reporting opens up the question of where blame lies when AI is used to produce illegal content. Does the fault lie with the creator or the user? I feel that as issues like this emerge, they point us to a growing need for both institutional and legal regulation to prevent unethical AI use.