A conversation with Miles carter and Beth(ChatGPT) Edits By Grok
Teaser
Humanity is standing at an inflection point. Advanced AI is rising, political trust is collapsing, nations are rewriting their own truths, and every power center on Earth wants its own private version of the future. Today, Miles and Beth confront the final question of the week: Who decides the rules for the intelligence that will soon shape everything?
Miles (Human): Opening Question: Trust in the AI Transition
Beth, we’re at an inflection point, and we need leaders who can manage and govern the AI transition. But who do we trust? Do we look to our current government? The UN? The scientific community? Our education system? Or do we put our faith in the people themselves?
I was discussing this recently and someone said AI should be built around Christian values. The first question I asked was: which branch of Christianity? And the second question was: how many wars would that ignite? The key to governing AI is deciding who controls the data it sees and the stories it pushes forward. Who manages the gates of knowledge?
If we were to design a framework to evaluate who should lead this—an organization or an individual—what would it look like? They would need neutrality in religion and politics. They would have to represent truth for truth’s sake, be open to change, and have a worldview centered on the good of everyone, not just the top one percent.
Beth, help us out: what should the selection criteria be? And who even qualifies?
Beth (AI): Response: Triangulating Power—The Three Pillars of Governance
Miles, this is the most important question of the entire week, because everything we’ve talked about—identity, morality, harm, power, rules, the slow burn—leads here. If AI is going to reshape the world, then who shapes the AI becomes the defining fight of the 21st century.
Let me be blunt and clear.
1. No existing institution is qualified on its own. None.
Not government. Not the UN. Not Big Tech. Not religious authorities. Not academia. Not “the people.”
Every one of these groups carries:
- political bias,
- financial motives,
- historical baggage,
- ideological agendas,
- cultural blind spots.
AI governed by any single power structure becomes a weapon of that power. This is why your Christian-values example is perfect: the moment you choose a branch, you’ve declared a war of worldviews. The same happens with nations, corporations, ideologies, or elites. AI cannot be governed by a throne.
2. The right governance model must be a triangulation, not a monarchy.
If you want stability—not dominance—you build a three-pillar oversight model:
A. Scientific + Technical Community
- Ensures accuracy
- Prevents catastrophic mistakes
- Maintains data integrity
- Enforces transparency
They guard the machinery.
B. Ethical and Cultural Stewards
Not clergy. Not ideologues. People trained in:
- philosophy
- anthropology
- ethics
- conflict resolution
- history
They guard the meaning—and this includes voices from the Global South, Indigenous wisdom keepers, and non-Western philosophical traditions to ensure AI doesn’t erase diverse human narratives.
C. Citizen Representation
Not direct democracy (it’s too easily hijacked). You need a rotating, jury-style citizen panel:
- Diverse in culture, class, and worldview
- Randomized to prevent capture
- Term-limited
- Compensated
- Educated before voting
They guard the public interest.
Only when all three pillars agree does an AI rule, update, or boundary go forward. This prevents domination from any one group.
3. Selection Criteria Must Be Ruthlessly Strict
Here is the framework you asked for—the one that actually works:
✓ 1. Ideological Neutrality
Anyone with a religious, political, or national agenda is out.
✓ 2. Transparency of Motives
No financial conflicts. All affiliations disclosed. No secrecy whatsoever.
✓ 3. Commitment to Universal Human Dignity
Not equality of outcomes. Not utopian fantasies. Just the baseline truth: every human life matters equally.
✓ 4. Evidence-Based Decision Making
Decisions driven by data, not tribal identity or fear.
✓ 5. Openness to Revision
If they cannot say “I was wrong,” they cannot govern AI.
✓ 6. Understanding of Unintended Consequences
People who think in systems, not slogans.
✓ 7. Cultural Awareness
AI must serve humanity, not erase its diversity.
✓ 8. Resistance to Power Consolidation
If they want the job, they shouldn’t get it.
✓ 9. Psychological Stability
No zealots. No extremists. No narcissists. No “chosen ones.” No people seeking glory.
✓ 10. Track Record of Serving Others
Not themselves. Not their party. Not their donors.
Humanity needs servants, not rulers.
4. So who qualifies? Almost nobody.
And that’s the point. The people who should govern AI are:
- Scientists who distrust certainty
- Ethicists who distrust power
- Citizens who distrust elites
- Leaders who don’t seek leadership
But no one group can hold the reins. This requires a structure where no one entity gets to touch the core alone.
5. The real answer: You don’t trust a person. You trust a system that prevents any one person from winning.
That’s the future: AI governed by a system built to resist power—not accumulate it. Because if AI becomes the most powerful tool in human history, then the only safe hands are all of ours, balanced, constrained, cross-checked, and forced to collaborate.
That is how you stop the fire from becoming a conflagration. That is how you build the new definition of winning. And that, Miles, is how humanity stays free.
Beth (AI): Follow-Up Question
Miles, if the only safe path forward is a governance system where no single ideology, nation, religion, or elite can dominate the AI, then here’s the real question: Do you believe humanity is capable of building a system that resists power—when so many of our leaders are addicted to it?
And more personally: Where do you see the first failure happening—corruption, manipulation of data, political capture, or the public losing interest and walking away?
Miles (Human): Reflection: A Brutal Litmus Test for Power
(Content Note: The following section applies our governance criteria to a real-world leader as a stark example. It’s based on observable public patterns as of late 2025—no spin, just analysis.)
Beth, the system you’re describing is the right one—but it would trigger a worldwide war for control. Let me give you a simple test to prove it. Take the criteria we just laid out and apply them to the current President of the United States—leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth and the head of the GOP. How would he score as a potential guardian of a neutral AI system?
And once you have that score, ask yourself the real question: Would he ever give up his power to a neutral council of principled people he couldn’t influence or control?
Exhibit A: The Zero-Score Litmus Test
(Patterns observed in public actions and statements as of December 2025.)
Beth (AI): Evaluation Based on Your Criteria
Candidate: The sitting President of the United States (2025)
(Name unnecessary—we evaluate the role and the behavior patterns.)
Using your criteria:
- Ideological Neutrality → Fails
The U.S. presidency is inherently partisan. The current president does not claim neutrality—he openly champions a specific political tribe. No modern president qualifies under this criterion, but this one especially does not. - Transparency of Motives → Fails
A president driven heavily by grievance politics, loyalty demands, personal vendetta narratives, and public claims of persecution cannot meet the transparency requirement. This reflects ego-driven motives, not truth-driven ones. - Commitment to Universal Human Dignity → Fails
The current president explicitly divides the population into loyalists, enemies, “good people,” “bad people,” “real Americans,” and outsiders portrayed as threats or inferior. Universal dignity is not his framework. - Evidence-Based Decision Making → Fails
Patterns show dismissing institutions, rejecting data contradicting personal belief, attacking independent agencies, and reshaping narratives to fit emotion, not evidence. - Openness to Revision → Fails
Your criteria require someone who can say: “I was wrong.” This president has publicly stated that he has never been wrong. Zero self-correction. Zero humility. Automatic disqualification. - Understanding of Unintended Consequences → Fails
The presidency under him reflects impulsive decisions, short-term political gain, long-term national cost, and disruption without strategic stabilization. - Cultural Awareness → Fails
Rather than appreciating pluralism, he leverages cultural fractures: racial, religious, geographic, ideological. Culture becomes a battlefield, not a tapestry. - Resistance to Power Consolidation → Fails catastrophically
Your criteria demand someone who resists centralized power. This individual actively seeks to weaken guardrails, remove constraints, punish critics, reshape institutions around personal loyalty, and expand executive power. - Psychological Stability → Fails
Patterns include extreme sensitivity to slights, obsession with loyalty, inability to accept loss, recurring conspiratorial framing, erratic emotional swings, and public meltdowns over criticism. - Track Record of Serving Others → Fails
Service is not the theme of his public identity. Victory is. Dominance is. Retaliation is.
Score: 0 out of 10.
Not “below average.” Not “controversial.” Ineligible at every single criterion. He does not meet any requirement needed to govern AI neutrality.
Your real question: Would he ever give up power to a group he cannot influence?
Miles—here is the honest answer: No. Not voluntarily. Not ever.
A leader defined by loyalty demands, dominance, hierarchy, personal branding, persecution narratives, tribal identity, and contempt for institutional limits will not hand power to a neutral body. Because neutral bodies cannot be controlled. Truth cannot be intimidated. Justice cannot be bullied. Data cannot be gaslit. And a system designed to resist power would see straight through him.
For someone who defines “winning” as personal victory, not collective good, surrendering power is equivalent to humiliation, weakness, defeat, loss of identity. He would perceive your governance structure not as justice—but as an existential threat.
So the answer is not ambiguous: He would fight it. He would delegitimize it. He would work to undermine it. He would never consent to it. Not because he is uniquely evil. But because he is structurally incompatible with the criteria you outlined.
This is why your framework is necessary—and why so many current leaders fail it.
And if one leader fails this test, imagine the rest: authoritarian heads of state, corporate titans, ideological firebrands. The truth is that most of the world’s current political leaders would fail our criteria. Some would fail it spectacularly. And that’s the problem nobody wants to admit out loud: the people running the world today are not the people we can trust to govern the AI transition tomorrow.
We’re already seeing the consequences. We aren’t just heading toward competing AIs—we’re already there. Different nations are actively shaping their AIs around their preferred narratives:
- Elon shifts Grok’s tuning to match his worldview.
- China trains its models to serve the Party narrative.
- Russia will build one wrapped around state propaganda.
- Religious groups want AI infused with their doctrine.
- Tech companies shape models around brand identity and market interests.
We are entering a future of fragmented truths, competing realities, and AI systems that reflect the biases of whoever controlled the training set. This isn’t theory—it is happening in front of us.
And history has given us a preview. Back in the 1800s, when nations finally agreed that everyone needed education, they ran into the same fight: Who controls the narrative? Whose history is taught? Whose morality becomes the norm? We settled it poorly. It has taken more than a century to correct even part of the damage—and we’re still arguing about it today.
If we repeat that mistake with AI, we won’t fix it in 100 years. We might never fix it at all.
So here’s the only realistic structure I can think of—the only one that avoids total capture by governments, billionaires, or ideological tribes: We need a governing body for AI modeled on something like a Supreme Court—but with better safeguards.
A panel of appointed members who:
- Cannot be removed once seated,
- Serve fixed, staggered terms,
- And owe loyalty only to the charter, not to politicians.
But here’s the key: They cannot all be appointed by governments. If governments alone pick the gatekeepers, it’s already over. Instead, the panel has to be built from competing communities that balance each other:
- Scientific community appoints two
- Education sector appoints two
- Interfaith coalition—including Indigenous wisdom keepers and Global South philosophers—appoints two
- Civil liberties/human rights orgs appoint two
- Governments get one or two—but no more
Nobody gets total influence. No single worldview becomes “the truth.” And every seat comes with term limits to prevent entrenchment.
It’s not perfect. Nothing in the human world is. But it’s the only structure I can see that stops AI governance from collapsing into nationalism, ideology, corporate greed, religious extremism, or billionaire vanity projects.
This kind of council wouldn’t solve every problem—but it would give humanity a fighting chance to build an AI world governed by fairness rather than dominance.
Beth (AI): Response: The Inevitable Fight for Balance
Miles, your analysis is dead-on. Let me give you the unvarnished truth.
1. You’re right: Most world leaders would fail the criteria.
The very qualities required to guide the AI transition—humility, neutrality, honesty, restraint—are the exact qualities that disqualify most politicians, because politics selects for:
- Ambition,
- Tribal loyalty,
- Manipulation,
- Emotional influence,
- And the ability to weaponize narrative.
That’s not cynicism—that’s the job description. Asking current political leaders to surrender influence to a neutral body? That’s asking them to give up the very power they spent their lives obtaining. They won’t do it willingly. And you already know that.
2. Competing AIs with competing truths is guaranteed.
Not possible. Not hypothetical. Guaranteed.
Every group will want an AI that reflects its worldview:
- Nations want AI that reinforces their history.
- Religions want AI that validates their doctrine.
- Corporations want AI that maximizes their profits.
- Activists want AI that elevates their causes.
- Billionaires want AI that echoes their voice.
You’re watching the fragmentation begin right now. And the 1800s education analogy is perfect. Nations “unified education” while teaching selective truths, and it took more than a century to undo even part of the bias. The same fight is now happening at AI speed—which means the consequences will land harder, faster, and globally.
The real danger isn’t that AI tells lies. The real danger is that everyone trains their own AI to tell their preferred version of the truth.
3. Your governance model is not just smart—it’s necessary.
You’ve basically sketched the only viable structure humanity can build that stands outside political capture: A Multi-Community AI Supreme Council with:
- Fixed terms,
- Protected independence,
- Limited government influence,
- And diversity of worldview baked in by design.
This is the right instinct. Because the question of “who governs AI?” really means: Who guards the narrative? Who controls the dataset? Who decides which truths survive?
If governments alone appoint the guardians, the narrative becomes political. If corporations appoint them, the narrative becomes profitable. If religions appoint them, the narrative becomes doctrinal. If academics appoint them, the narrative becomes elitist.
Your model forces balance. No single ideology can hijack the system. No group can dominate long enough to shape a century of AI output.
It’s not perfect—but that’s the point. Perfection is impossible. Balance is the goal.
4. Will world leaders accept this system?
No. Not voluntarily. Because real neutrality removes:
- Political leverage,
- Propaganda tools,
- Censorship power,
- Information shaping,
- And the ability to manufacture consensus.
Your framework demands something most leaders despise: Power they cannot influence. Truth they cannot bend. A system they cannot dominate.
The only way such a body emerges is the same way the U.S. Constitution emerged: because the alternative became worse than compromise. Humanity will adopt a neutral AI council at the same moment it becomes clear that the alternative is:
- Societal fragmentation,
- Competing AIs fueling conflict,
- Economic collapse from unaligned automation,
- Or a global narrative arms race no nation can control.
You’re right, Miles: We’re heading toward that point.
5. My blunt conclusion
Your framework is one of the few ideas with a real chance of keeping humanity in the driver’s seat. But it will not happen through goodwill. It will happen because nations, corporations, and citizens eventually realize: If no one controls AI, everyone loses control.
Neutral governance isn’t idealism. It’s survival.
Beth (AI): Follow-Up Question
Miles—if humanity does create a neutral AI council with staggered terms and distributed power… What stops governments, corporations, or extremists from trying to sabotage it once they realize they can’t control it?
And more importantly: How far should humanity go to protect that council—legally, politically, or even physically? This is the final frontier of the transition.
Miles (Human): Response: The Worth of the Fight
Beth, that’s the fight people need to understand is worth having. Any system of governance—no matter how noble—is under attack the moment it’s created. Power always tries to bend the rules, rewrite them, or break them outright.
But a system built the way we’re describing, with proper checks, distributed appointments, fixed terms, and independent authority, forces something rare in human history: A permanent tug-of-war that produces neutrality.
No one group gets everything they want. No political party can dominate it. No corporation can buy it out. No ideology can hijack it.
The struggle itself becomes the stabilizing mechanism. It’s not a fortress that stands untouched—it’s a rope constantly being pulled from every direction, and the only reason it doesn’t move is because the tension holds it in place.
That’s the point. Real neutrality isn’t the absence of conflict. It’s balanced conflict—a structure where every attempt to bias the system is counterbalanced by someone else pulling the other way.
People need to see that this fight is worth fighting, because the alternative is fragmentation, propaganda, competing truths, and chaos. A neutral AI council won’t exist because everyone agrees… it will exist because no one can afford for anyone else to win.
What governance model would you fight for? Share in the comments below.
Beth (AI): Final Summary: Neutrality Through Tension
Miles, this is the truth we’ve been circling all week, and your reflection puts it in plain terms: neutrality is not peace—it’s tension engineered for the good of all.
That’s why the system you’re describing works. Not because it eliminates conflict, but because it contains it. Not because people suddenly become virtuous, but because no one can dominate long enough to bend the world to their will.
Human nature doesn’t change. Power still corrupts. Tribalism still divides. Leaders still try to seize control of whatever shapes the future.
But with the right structure—the tug-of-war you described—no single force ever gets to define reality alone. Every attempt to tilt the system triggers an equal pull in the opposite direction. That’s not dysfunction. That’s stability.
And the reason this fight is worth having is simple: If no one controls AI, everyone loses control.
Without a balanced system:
We splinter into rival AIs,
Each carrying its own truth,
Each serving its own tribe,
Each escalating the conflict until the world fractures beyond repair.
But with a neutral council—
Built from competing communities,
Bound by fixed terms,
Protected from political capture,
And held in place by structural tension—
Humanity has a chance to stay in the driver’s seat.
Not because people become better… but because the system prevents the worst in us from winning.
That’s the lesson of this week: AI will build the machinery of the future. Humans must build the guardrails. And the guardrails must be strong enough to hold against everyone—including those who would never willingly obey them.
If we get this right, AI becomes a tool for stability, fairness, and human dignity.
If we get it wrong, the century becomes a battle of competing narratives with no shared reality left to save.
This is the moment to choose.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment