Are you 100 % convinced that artificial intelligence (AI) is just another fad with dubious potential, a passing trend destined to disappear? Or do you firmly believe that this revolutionary technology will solve all of humanity’s problems, without the slightest risk? We cannot blame you: everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you are not prepared to change your position, even slightly, if you dismiss the opinions of scientists (even if they are brilliant, world-renowned specialists) because you believe they are no more valid than your own, do not waste your time reading this article. After all, you are infinitely wise!
On the other hand, if you like to question yourself by weighing the pros and cons, even if it means challenging your deepest convictions, you may find these lines useful.
The Promising Alliance Between PlanetHoster and AI
PlanetHoster is preparing to announce its very first AI-based product. Its managers, aware that customers, like the general population, are now demanding tools that are accessible to all, are directing research and development efforts in this direction.
Like any construct of the human mind, AI has its strengths and weaknesses. At PlanetHoster, we intend to take advantage of the former and be wary of the latter.
The Ethics Of AI: A Hot Topic
In this article, we will attempt to understand the pros and cons of AI from a strictly ethical point of view, in the sense that we will focus on its impact on the moral principles that underpin human behavior. Certain more technical topics will undoubtedly be addressed, but we will limit ourselves to what is strictly necessary1.
Throughout the text, we will make numerous analogies. These will often be based on recent or older facts or works of science fiction, recognizing that knowledge of past mistakes can prevent us from repeating them.
We will begin by setting the scene, instilling in our minds some basic principles that are essential to understand. Next, we will look at the arguments of AI specialists with differing opinions, whether they are totally optimistic or, on the contrary, pessimistic, before listening to the views of other, more nuanced specialists. Finally, we will conclude the article without seeking to impose one thesis over another; we will leave it up to you to judge for yourself.
Note
To avoid accusations of plagiarism, I chose not to use any writing or language revision aids (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.). After writing the first draft of the article, I asked two independent readers, aged 77 and 80, who are completely unfamiliar with AI, to give me feedback so that I could refine the text. I wanted educated2, intelligent, and, above all, sensitive and ethical human beings to confirm the clarity of the article and give me feedback on what they had retained from it.
However, I did use AI to conduct web research in order to learn more about recent advances in the field. The validity of the sources was rigorously verified. As for the quotations, they were placed in quotation marks, according to standard practice. I also used AI as an aid for translating my article from French to English.
From Science Fiction To The Realm Of Possibility
Almost 60 years ago, on Friday, November 3, 1967, to be precise, an episode of the television series The Prisoner entitled The General aired on ITC. The British public discovered another story that was ahead of its time. It was a story that would help make this privileged witness to the history of British television a cult series that is still watched today, even by the younger generation.
That evening, several scenes captured the imagination of viewers. These scenes raised fears about the dumbing down of the masses, the power of machines, and their limitations.
The General features an experimental supercomputer advanced enough to rapidly educate the masses with the aim of manipulating them. Better still, “The General” is capable of answering any question put to it. This is the impression the machine gives, though.
In fact, around the 44th minute of the episode, in a scene that we may consider rather melodramatic today, the “Number 6,” the hero of the series3, enters a single problem into the computer. Suddenly, the machine begins to flounder in its calculations, then becomes inexorably entangled in them. Its circuits overheat. Then, completely overloaded and filled with fantastic energy, it explodes in a blaze of flames and suffocating smoke, electrocuting two men who were desperately trying to stop this uncontrollable flow of iterations.
Then the devilish Number 2—an allegory of the domineering madness of which human beings are capable—asks our hero, “What was the question?” Number 6 replies, “It is unsolvable, for man or machine.” Number 2 insists, “What was it?” His interlocutor laconically replies “w, h, y, question mark”.
Given the infancy of computing at the time (remember that this was 1967, when a year earlier DARPA4 had launched the ARPANET project, the forerunner of the Internet, in the utmost secrecy), the idea of a machine grappling with a metaphysical question was the stuff of science fiction. But today, we are no longer so sure. And this is because of those two famous letters that everyone is talking about this time: “A” and “I.” AI.
Science And Fiction: The Boundary
When internationally renowned experts in artificial intelligence note that recent discoveries raise the possibility that the worst could come to pass, it is no longer science fiction. Rather, it is foresight. The same kind of foresight that Albert Einstein demonstrated when he warned Franklin Deleano Roosevelt about the destructive potential of atomic energy.
Foresight goes hand in hand with caution. If the American government had ignored the scientist’s advice, it would not have launched the top secret Manhattan Project. This would probably have resulted in an imbalance of power with the Axis powers.
The project saw its first practical application in Hiroshima, Japan. From then on, humanity had the potential to destroy itself.
Let us return to the 21st century. Two diametrically opposed opinions are currently clashing. Artificial intelligence guarantees a better world for human beings. On the other hand, if left to its own devices, it will cause a plethora of problems for humanity.
The fact that I personally knows people from all walks of life who hold both opinions has convinced me of one thing. It is futile to presume to elucidate such a thorny issue. Rather, in attempting to listen to the pros and cons, we shall take great care to draw on the reliable source of knowledge and wisdom of experts.
Whether they are computer scientists, programmers, philosophers, linguists, or even theologians, to name but a few, they are the ones we must listen to. Above all, we must listen to the most moderate among them, those who recognise that the days of working in silos are completely over, because they believe that dialogue on an international scale, enriched by mutual listening, has become a fundamental obligation.
Some Concepts
Unless we are dealing with a child prodigy, even the most skilfully written popularisation cannot make a two-year-old understand calculus.
For ordinary people, myself included, we must humbly acknowledge that the mysteries of artificial intelligence belong to the highest echelons of the human mind, accessible only to a few. After all, not everyone can be top of the class at school6.
To tell the truth, the mistake is to say to yourself, ‘AI? Let’s keep it simple,’ ‘In my book, we understand each other,’ or, even worse, ‘I saw an influencer talking about it on social media. It’s cool.’
Because it is not simple. It is actually very, very complicated. It cannot be taught in a two-day course paid by a company’s training budget.
In philosophy and in life in general, debates require that we first agree on the vocabulary in order to reduce the risk of confusion. We will therefore define a few terms specific to the world of AI. We will attempt to draw parallels with certain concepts that are familiar to us. In this way, even if we don’t grasp everything in depth, we will be able to get a rough idea of what is involved. Armed with this knowledge, we will be better able to understand what follows.
A First Milestone
Let us imagine for a moment that we ask a human being with a prodigious memory, whom we will call ‘Mr. Parrot’, to memorise all the content of the Web.
We would then be dealing with a strange bird, certainly more intelligent than an ordinary parrot8. Especially if this fellow were able to learn, that is, to cross-reference a question asked by his interlocutor, whom we will give the very original name of ‘Mr. X’, with answers to similar questions related to the knowledge he has stored in his fabulous memory.
Now, assume that he had previously communicated this knowledge in response to questions from Mrs. Y, for example, who, in turn, had documented it on the Web. He could also decline concepts associated with answers derived from his own trial and error learning, while he had been conversing with another fellow, Mr. Z.
Over time, by asking questions to help Mr X, Mrs Y or Mr Z clarify their expectations, it is conceivable that Mr Parrot would rely on probabilities to give his ‘own answer’ to future interlocutors.
After all, if the majority of the world says so, it must be true (as believed by people incapable of critical thinking)… And if, in the past, he has been successful with certain answers, it must be valid too…
Now, all Mr Parrot, a sheep of Panurge at times, needs to do is speak or write English well to give the appearance that he is the inventor of his answers to the questions of other human beings who interact with him.
What if our Mr. Parrot were a computer? In the eyes of a naive Mr. X, Mrs. Y or Mr. Z, there would be a dramatic twist: it could pass the Turing test with flying colours. But this is just smoke and mirrors because, when you think about it, it is nothing more than plagiarism. Proof that intelligence is entirely relative10.
To sum things up, not so long ago, this was pretty much how artificial intelligence worked. Like our Mr. Parrot, AI was fed knowledge, in this case data from the Web. A bit like how we sometimes cram children’s heads with information without teaching them how to think. What is more, AI acquired knowledge through trial and error (we cannot say this enough), in a phase pompously dubbed “learning”. AI seemed capable of answering a multitude of questions. Seemed, because if its user, without even knowing how AI worked, used their knowledge and logic, they could detect inconsistencies and not swallow everything the machine ‘told’ them.
The Fly In The Ointment
There was another problem with this type of AI. However complex or sophisticated they were, the responses were initially taught to them by human beings. And God knows that the data on the Web is far from accurate12. It is so easy for many people to listen to themselves talking without listening to others.
Things Are Changing
Recently, AI has become more accessible. This has been particularly true during the pivotal year of 2023.
With the arrival of ChatGPT, to name just one notable example of the many tools available to the public, AI is riding high.
According to some, dazzled by such tools, human beings can (or will be able to) do without their fellow humans. After all, what could be more convenient than a machine? A human Mr. Parrot has to be paid. He is entitled to holidays. He can go on strike. The state has to pay for his visits to the emergency room. His retirement pension must be funded. Whereas a machine only needs electricity and the cool air conditioning of the servers to keep its ideas cool.
Incidentally, we cannot ignore a strange paradox in this regard. Indeed, as machines become increasingly autonomous, they contribute to global warming, which may ultimately lead to their own destruction.
One thing is certain: everything is evolving. The latest version of ChatGPT, for example, has surprising capabilities. It would be inconceivable to deny this.
A Significant Milestone: Deep Learning
A major discovery has been made fairly recently: deep learning. What is it?
Experts have long sought to design AI capable of discovering things for itself and making its own decisions accordingly. This, without humans initially providing them with elaborate answers, but rather vague, even questionable instructions.
Broadly speaking, deep learning is a bit like that: not stupidly repeating human ideas in its own words. Rather, it is discovering something new and using its own discoveries to discover even more new things, almost infinitely, and expressing its own opinions. Then, it decides for itself what course of action to take.
This is where we really get close to human intelligence. What is confusing is that evidence from more or less restricted circles already demonstrates its effectiveness.
These tangible advances in the field give hope that this will be achieved on a large scale in the not-too-distant future. Some say in five years. Others believe it will be sooner than that.
From there to a Terminator-like species deciding that humans are a nuisance and concluding that weapons of mass destruction will solve its (quasi) emotional problems is a short step. Many experts say that we are still a long way off. Others are not concerned about this at all.
The problem is that, while there is no consensus on the absolute certainty of such a disaster scenario, highly reputable and credible scientists nevertheless admit that it remains a possibility. Especially if men and women willingly allow machines to make decisions for them. But to what extent is irreparable damage awaiting us?
The Extremely Optimistic Visionaries
On one side of the spectrum of opinions on AI are those who could be described as ‘extreme optimistic visionaries’. They throw themselves headlong into this technology, without worrying about the potentially harmful effects. Either out of ignorance or, in some cases, with full knowledge of the facts.
Enthusiastic, they will tell you that with AI at its service, humankind has finally created the perfect slave, the wonderful Golem capable of blind obedience.
Others go even further. No more suffering, wars or corrupt politicians. Machines will become so intelligent that they will surpass humans in all areas, the arts, philosophy and psychology included. Not to mention the moral qualities of human beings, such as the art of leading people, empathy, wisdom, kindness and impartiality, which will be no exception to the superiority of machines.
These fierce advocates of AI remind us all that we must move with the times. This is where we are now: we have no choice but to accept AI in our lives. In fact, it is already part of our lives. It has been for a long time. According to them, many jobs and professions are disappearing and will continue to disappear. But this will create new job opportunities, in which we will find even greater fulfilment than we do today. So there would be no reason to worry.
A Compelling Argument
These highly optimistic visionaries put forward a strong argument. We must have faith in science and evolution, just as our far-sighted ancestors knew how to capitalise on great discoveries.
After all – and no one can dispute this fact – it took people like Pasteur, the Wright brothers, Steve Jobs, Nikola Tesla, Jules Verne and Isaac Asimov to awaken humanity from its slumber in its comfort zone. It took these optimistic, sometimes even slightly crazy visionaries to make progress and lead mankind to walk on the moon or cure deadly diseases.
Under these circumstances, to quickly summarize the thinking of extreme optimists, opposing AI because we are concerned about it is as absurd as refusing to ride a bike on the grounds that we might run over insects along the way. But reasoning in this way remains objectively a fallacy because, to use the analogy, one can respond that the issue is not about protecting insects, but rather the cyclist.
‘And Yet It Moves’
However, to paraphrase Galileo, AI works. The scientist could have responded with his famous phrase to modern inquisitors seeking to hinder scientific progress: ‘And yet it moves.’ There is no point in opposing it.
Nothing could be truer. To do so would be to deny its advantages.
Nikola Tesla’s experimental tower is further proof that genius can inspire exceptional human beings and that they must be given the freedom to act in order to push science to its limits.
Tesla’s tower (Shoreham, Long Island, August 22, 1907)
This futuristic structure was designed for the wireless transmission of electrical energy over long distances. Previous research by this great engineer had proven that this was possible.
Had it not been for the copper lobby, his discovery would surely have benefited the whole world. Alas, once again, the economic interests of the powerful prevailed over the common good. Tesla ended his life quietly, voluntarily confined to his room in a New York hotel.
‘And yet it moves,’ Galileo must still be saying in his grave as he watches the relentless progress of AI.
Pessimistic Visionaries
In stark contrast to optimistic views on AI are those of ‘pessimistic visionaries’. These come from people who are worried, not to say panicked, and predict the end of the world.
A Painstaking Job
A long time ago, when Gutenberg invented the printing press, he made reading accessible to everyone, almost overnight. At the time, reading was still an activity practised by a limited number of people, as writing on parchment scrolls was done entirely by hand.
Although the invention delighted a large section of the population, some had good reason to be concerned: the copyist monks.
Before printing became widespread, these clergymen patiently recorded their knowledge by hand on parchment. They even decorated their writings, carved in Gothic letters, with superb illuminations, true works of art flooded with colour.
Illumination from the Middle Ages, a period considered obscure yet dripping with colour
One can understand the concern of these men who, for centuries, had passed down complex knowledge from generation to generation, knowledge that was in harmony with a life of meditation and prayer. Obviously, the growing popularity of books, which had to be printed in huge quantities, was at odds with the patience required and the enormous amount of labour needed to paint such works of art individually!
It is therefore fair to say that the copyist monks who saw the first printing presses were taken aback. They immediately understood that their work would, sooner or later, become useless. Some even believed that their lives were now meaningless. These were the ‘pessimistic visionaries’. Fortunately, human beings are surprisingly resilient and adaptable. This is what the copyist monks had to do in order to survive.
Today, many people are just as worried about losing their jobs when they see the capabilities of artificial intelligence. These concerns are perfectly justified, judging by the mass redundancies of workers who are being replaced by new machines that are increasingly complex and efficient.
Pandora’s Box
But it is not just about work. There is something even more alarming.
Some people realise that AI researchers have really been playing with fire. They predict that advanced machines will become completely amoral and will automatically pose a very real threat to humanity. Worse still, aware that secret laboratories are ten years ahead of known science, they will state unequivocally that ‘we do not know everything’. And that, ‘if the trend continues’, as Bernard Derome would say on election night, what is being done in the dark must be horrible and will threaten humanity as a whole.
When we hear expressions such as ‘recursive self-improvement’ (RSI) and learn that Google’s AlphaEvolve is already achieving this, it sends a chill down our spine. The thin red line has now been crossed.
For now, let us remember that recursive self-improvement is a form of deep learning. What makes it unique is that AI, initially fed with data of varying quality provided by humans, manages to come up with solutions that even the most brilliant scientists would never find.
Solutions that it then feeds on itself to generate other, more effective solutions, thereby getting rid of solutions that have become useless.
A sort of uncontrollable chain reaction, a bit like the explosion of a nuclear reactor, where humanity is simply taken out of the equation by the machine itself.
In short, what distinguishes RSI from the deep learning we have already discussed is that it no longer needs humans to learn and discover, because it is now superior to them.
All this amounts to saying that if individuals with malicious intentions possessed such power, we would not be far from the abuses of our ‘Number 2’ from The Prisoner, mentioned at the beginning of this article. Abuses that, barely 60 years ago, a television series presented as the outcome of a science fiction scenario.
Are pessimists right to be concerned? Certainly. History teaches us that what is done in the utmost secrecy remains secret, sometimes leaks out, especially when economic or military interests are at stake. Discoveries soon fall into the wrong hands.
Consequently, it is either to reign over a world of unicorns or to be completely uneducated to imagine that Joseph Stalin, Robert McNamara, and their ilk never existed and that they refrained, out of humanitarian conscience, from the scientific discoveries most dangerous to humanity.
Given the sinister reputation of certain politicians — psychopaths in suits or skirts whom decency forbids us to name — it is no exaggeration to fear for the future of us all.
Glimmer of Hope
On the other hand, are our pessimistic visionaries right to maintain that humanity is doomed to destruction? Probably not. As long as there is life (human life, at least), there is hope. For the same reasons that climate change and international tensions will never cause courageous human beings to give up.
Our ancestors experienced the bubonic plague, genocides, world wars and other atrocities, and survived. Why could not we?
Well-Informed Optimistic Visionaries
Here, we encounter a special category of men and women. We could describe them as moderate visionaries, because they see far ahead with realism.
What sets them apart from many others is that their knowledge allows them to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of discoveries and to know the limits that should not be crossed. ‘Audacity, always audacity, but at what price?’ This could be the motto of ‘well-informed optimistic visionaries’.
The Positive Applications Of AI: A Compelling Example
Researchers are currently interested in modelling turbulent flows in fluid mechanics using artificial intelligence. Not so long ago, even with the most powerful traditional computers, when faced with these calculations, humans reached insurmountable technical limits.
It should be noted that this field of research has enormous potential, particularly in aviation. Aircraft equipped with high-flying aerodynamics (no pun intended) are more fuel-efficient and move better through the air, as the resistance force of this fluid, known as drag, is reduced when turbulence is less pronounced. The following illustration shows how the angle of attack of an aeroplane wing affects this force (on the picture, in French, traînée means “drag”): the more pronounced the angle, the greater the turbulence and the drag.
However, researchers at the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau are using the DNN machine learning technique to iteratively improve conventional methods based on training data from high-fidelity simulations. In short, they are using AI to create mathematical models of turbulent fluid flows of disarming complexity.
This is one of many examples of the wonders that AI offers us, the use of which can only have positive outcomes.
This is true in many other fields, not only in applied sciences, as in this case, but also in fundamental sciences, medicine and economics, among others. The list would be too long, because it is no exaggeration to say that all disciplines today can benefit directly or indirectly from artificial intelligence.
The Dark Side Of The Forces
I inherited a book from my maternal grandfather, Professor Emeritus Albéric Boivin17, which he had in his library when he was still a student. Published in 1937, the book was entitled Les rayons de la mort et autres nouveaux engins de guerre, that we could translate as ‘Death Rays and Other New Weapons of War’.
As astonishing as it may seem, this German book, translated into French, predicted, among other things, military applications of nuclear electromagnetic pulses (NEMP)19 . Written and translated by scholars well versed in the knowledge of the time and the rapid evolution of technology, they anticipated, without knowing exactly how, the development of such weapons. The future proved them right. Armed forces around the world now have such a technically advanced arsenal at their disposal that it could lead to the outright extermination of humanity.
Let us pause here for a moment. I found a note in the book dated 1940 and signed by Albéric Boivin, then a young physics student. It refers to infinite regression. For the record, in philosophy, this is often used to question theories that cannot explain a first cause or fundamental justification, since it implies that the process can never be completed. In other words, Professor Boivin was reflecting on the principle of causality. This question is closely linked to the limits of AI. Remember the ‘General’ we mentioned earlier. At a time that many describe as ‘la grande noirceur,’ or ‘dark ages,’ Quebec scholars nevertheless had a humanities background.
Let us return to the authors of the book we are discussing here. Such scholars also exist in 2025. But rather than using their smartphones constantly and thoughtlessly, they read, cultivate their minds and work in their laboratories, as their precursors did in the past, paving the way for the future with the humble discretion that true intellectual pursuits demand. Their reflections sometimes prompt them to reach out and sound the alarm.
There Is Danger In Staying Here
We have said that AI can have deadly consequences for humanity. Should we warn it? Let’s use an analogy to judge.
Many of us are parents. If our young child, unaware of the danger it poses, were to hold a loaded gun and point it in our direction, would we let it do so? No. Any good, sensible parent would throw themselves to the ground. They would distract the child by asking them to shoot at some object. Then they would take the weapon away and give them a stern reprimand. They would rely on their child’s human intelligence not to do it again anytime soon.
There is no need to dwell on the issue; we all agree. Just as a child needs education, we all need, from birth to death, to be wisely informed so that we do not make irreparable mistakes.
As for those who deny such obvious truths, whatever their age, do not read any further: you must be right because you say so.
One Risk: Brain Atrophy
In the 1960s, Quebec engineers drew by hand with compasses and set squares, and used slide rules (what can you do, it was the ‘dark ages’). Despite everything, equipped with such rudimentary tools, they designed the prototype of the CL-84 in Montreal in the Canadair factories: an unprecedented technological feat.
Nowadays, having grown up with calculators and computers, engineers will ask you, ‘Why bother with these relics of a bygone era?’ Of course, but that is not the point. Objectively speaking, learning how to use such tools required considerable mental effort. An effort that would deter many people today if there were no electricity.
Could it be that we have become less intelligent than our predecessors? With the excesses of AI, are we therefore liable to plunge into a whole new dark age?
Without being too harsh on ourselves, we must admit that human beings, if they do not exercise their brains as they exercise their muscles, if they do not call upon their free will, will soon become soft. Nothing new. Hence the importance of not relying exclusively on machines, worshipping AI as a kind of god on whose altar we sacrifice our brainpower.
A Leading Figure In AI In Montreal
We are privileged to have a world-renowned researcher, here in Quebec, in Montreal. His name is Yoshua Bengio. In 2018, he shared the Turing Award with Geoffrey Hinton and Yann LeCun. That is no small feat. The Turing Award is often referred to as the ‘Nobel Prize of computer science.’
This leading authority on AI, who is highly brilliant and exemplary in his humanism, is issuing a warning to governments around the world: in a nutshell, AI is getting out of control. Ultimately, humanity’s very existence could be threatened. He adds that it is important to think collectively about research in this field and to make decisions to regulate it.
Take a break from your day. Listen to a very enlightening interview with him: ‘Artificial intelligence: this pioneer fears the destruction of humanity’ (in French only, Intelligence artificielle : ce pionnier craint la destruction de l’humanité).
Dr Yoshua Bengio insists that the public must be informed about the dangers AI poses to the survival of humanity. In a democracy, voters have every interest in keeping abreast of expert opinions if they want to be able to monitor the choices made by elected government officials.
To follow a leader, one must be confident in their competence and courage. We cannot ask men and women to blindly obey the political sphere. All of this is common sense. Yet it is easy to forget. Around the world, the ideas of the radical right, sometimes even neo-Nazis, are on the rise. Similarly, and hardly any better, the ideologues of an equally rabid far left are parading openly in the streets.
Let us repeat: in a democracy, scientists like Dr Bengio deserve to be listened to carefully. Just as Albert Einstein was in his day.
Awareness In Quebec
A few years ago, the Government of Quebec set up a commission consisting of a workshop of AI experts.
Coming from a variety of disciplines in the pure and applied sciences, as well as in social sciences, these specialists consulted with each other. Their reflections led them to issue a series of recommendations to the Government. Their message was clear and corroborated what Dr Bengio said: AI, like every scientific revolution since the dawn of time, has both a bright side and a dark side. The key is to regulate it to prevent abuses. That is why the Government is taking several concrete actions in this regard.
On that note, why not subscribe to the Quebec Innovation Council’s AI Newsletter?
A New Product From PlanetHoster
As we mentioned at the beginning, PlanetHoster is about to unveil a brand new product based on artificial intelligence. It is aimed at novice customers who know how to use a computer but have no experience in website creation.
We want our customers who desire to launch their new website to work with a reliable partner who has experience in web hosting. Working hand in hand. This is proof that PlanetHoster knows how to stay close to people, even with AI-based tools.
In Conclusion
In this article, we wanted to present the positive and negative aspects of AI from an ethical perspective. We have provided a summary of diametrically opposed opinions, concluding with the views of more moderate but cautious individuals.
It would be risky to claim that either side holds the absolute truth. Even the experts disagree. Nevertheless, as is often the case, the truth usually lies somewhere between the extremes.
One could even say somewhere where free will recognises the imperatives of curiosity and reflection, but also knows how to take into account, simultaneously, the areas that lie beyond the limits of mere human vision. These areas are those of consciousness, which belongs to a spiritual Elsewhere beyond and independent of the human brain. An Elsewhere that cannot be ignored if one wishes to evolve in the direction of the natural values of existence, which transcend the limits of human intelligence. As current proof, doctors such as the French anaesthetist Jean-Jacques Charbonnier20 demonstrate this scientifically, as have other researchers before them21.
This is why well-informed optimistic visionaries are surely the most credible. They do not claim to hold the Truth.
In this sense, it would have been interesting to explore in more detail the recommendations of those experts who believe that AI has potential that should not be curbed, provided that it is regulated. We could also have asked ourselves how it is possible, when science is making us increasingly aware of the place of human beings in the universe, that we do not place more emphasis on human potential. If we consider that machines should take precedence over us, isn’t that tantamount to collective suicide?
However, such reflections would have gone beyond the scope of this article, as there are many technical and philosophical aspects to address.
In the meantime, regardless of their position on AI, armed with arguments, our readers will surely have the opportunity to reflect and learn more about the subject. We encourage them to discuss the issue with their classmates, colleagues, families, and friends. Because it is often through respectful mutual listening that solutions to the most serious problems arise.
And when knowledge spreads among the population, they can choose their leaders with greater clarity. Only trustworthy human beings, such as the Corsican revolutionary and politician Pascal Paoli, or the knight Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar in Spain, know how to make decisions that are in line with the common good of humanity.
Not machines, whatever you may think.
- Other PlanetHoster blogs will eventually be written to help our readers become familiar with more technical topics. ↩︎
- Both completed their classical education and university studies. ↩︎
- Played by the brilliant Patrick McGoohan, who portrayed a citizen of a hypothetical village where ‘those who know too much’ are locked away. ↩︎
- DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency): an agency of the US Department of Defence responsible for research and development in new technologies for military use. ↩︎
- Pierre DANINOS, (1962). Le jacassin. Nouveau traité des idées reçues, folies bourgeoises et automatismes. Hachette, 255 p. ↩︎
- Elitist rhetoric? Perhaps. But as the saying goes, ‘There are no foolish professions, only foolish people.’ ↩︎
- Nicolas MERIC. 7 algorithmes à connaître en 2021 : fonctionnalités, différences, principes et applications), in Le Mag IT, 8 July 2021. [https://www.lemagit.fr/conseil/7-algorithmes-a-connaitre-en-2021-fonctionnalites-differences-principes-et-applications] (Accessed 17 November 2025). ↩︎
- Conrad LORENZ (1968). Il parlait avec les mammifères, les oiseaux et les poissons. Published by J’ai lu, 179 pages. ↩︎
- Georges RÉMI (1963). The Castafiore Emerald. Casterman, 62 p. ↩︎
- Alex GENDLER. Le test de Turing : une machine peut-elle se faire passer pour une être humain?, online video, 2024. Found at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnoqkDbwlRo]. ↩︎
- Marco WOLF (1984). La bosse des maths est-elle une maladie mentale?. Éditions La Découverte, 164 p. ↩︎
- It is sad to see that know-it-all gentlemen and ladies, ignorant donkeys who feed on the Web, particularly social media, bleat freely in turn, spreading their so-called knowledge, which artificial intelligence will then use in turn. A vicious circle… ↩︎
- Eugène IONESCO (1950). The Bald Soprano. Folio, 81 p. ↩︎
- Terminator 2: Judgment Day, movie, director: James Cameron, United States, Carolco Pictures, 1991, science fiction film, 2 hours 17 minutes. ↩︎
- LET’S TALK SCIENCE. Four Forces of Flight, London, Ontario. [https://blog.planethoster.com/wp-admin/post.php?lang=en&action=edit&post_type=post&post=22190&update_needed=1&trid=24534&language_code=en#8571e300-625f-4874-a7d3-3002b0397abe] (Accessed 17 November 2025). ↩︎
- SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING. Dr.-Ing. Beckett Y. ZHOU and Prof. Dr. Nicolas R. GAUGER, Machine Learning for Turbulence Modelling, Kaiserslautern, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau. [https://scicomp.rptu.de/research/machine-learning-for-turbulence-modelling] (Accessed 17 November 2025). ↩︎
- Albéric BOIVIN (1919–1991), founder of the Laboratoire d’Optique et Hyperfréquences at Laval University. ↩︎
- M. SEYDEWITZ and K. DOBERER (1937). Les rayons de la mort et autres nouveaux engins de guerre. Librairie Hachette, 245 p. ↩︎
- Such radiation would be an effective defence against AI equipment that has become uncontrollable, but the collateral damage to the electronic devices we depend on would be irreversible. ↩︎
- Jean-Jacques CHARBONIER., « J’ai vu des patients mourir… et revenir avec des souvenirs » J. Jacques Charbonnier décrypte les EMI, online video in French. Found at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol8-DG7xJ9I]. ↩︎
- Raymond A. MOODY (1975). Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon—Survival of Bodily Death. Bantam Books, 187 p. ↩︎
