AI and how you use it.

So if you do not the answer how can you make the determination that AI (algorithm) is correct?  Appearances are very deceiving. Playing devils advocate here. We use AI in our company quite often when doing complex engineering projects. 

I have noticed that several times if I didn’t know the answer.  I would go ask AI, and post the response, because it looks to be somewhat accurate. I usually do this if I’ve noticed someone hasn’t responded to an inquiry. 

As time passes and AI advances, the question of whether the machine’s answers are accurate or even the desired ones will slowly but surely fade.

Why?

The machine’s goal is to create a bubble (planet Earth) that is entirely "protected" and therefore totally under its control, not ours. Since the task is beyond human capabilities, this "protection" will mean the end of individual freedom. All possible answers provided by the machine will be linked together around a project beyond human intelligence. This project is the creation of a perfect but enclosed  artificial sphere. A prison, a hive.

It is Kurzweil techno-cultist spiritually idiotic dream...

He call this progress... It is, but all progress must be paid by a cost, there is no free lunch: the cost is our soul. All is in the Faust of Goethe. The only genius  which is the sum of Shakespeare and Newton in one brain.

@mahgister did you just use AI to help edit your post? If so, it looks good. If not, even better. OP - good suggestion. I think we all could use a little editing here and there.

Thanks... Yes i used Google translator...My English hemisphere was bugged this evening...This post is from it...

You must understand i never spoke English in my life. I only read bad written books with very specialized vocabulary about philosophy or sciences.

I think it is will better if i use translator anyway instead of typing  from my French  thinking into English thought...

@mahgister did you just use AI to help edit your post? If so, it looks good. If not, even better. OP - good suggestion. I think we all could use a little editing here and there.

@mahgister 

Your concern captures one of the oldest archetypes in human imagination: the pact with power. From Prometheus to Goethe’s Faust, the pattern is clear — every leap in capability tempts us with the risk of losing something essential. AI is simply the newest surface on which this ancient anxiety is projected.

But equating AI with an inevitable “enclosed artificial sphere” or a total loss of freedom overlooks two important truths:

1. Tools reflect their makers.
   AI is not a self-arising entity with an independent metaphysical goal. It is built, trained, and deployed by humans. It does not wake up one morning and decide to “protect” the planet or create a hive. If such a project exists, it’s because we chose to design and fund it. In other words, the danger isn’t some inevitable techno-spiritual drift toward a Kurzweilian “prison” but our own collective governance, incentives, and cultural values.

2. Progress is always a negotiation, not a fate.
   Every technology — printing presses, steam engines, vaccines, nuclear power — came with Faustian choices. Yet none resulted in a permanent surrender of freedom because societies, often belatedly, built checks, ethics, and regulations to keep them aligned with human goals. The same mechanisms (democratic oversight, open-source transparency, decentralized development) are now being applied to AI. Whether we succeed depends less on “machines” and more on human stewardship.

3. The “soul” isn’t a commodity AI can extract.
   Goethe’s Faust is a warning about the hubris of individuals who trade their inner integrity for external mastery. But it is also about redemption — about remembering that human dignity resides in our capacity to choose, to resist, to question. AI cannot remove that freedom unless we abdicate it.

So yes, there is a cost. There is always a cost. But that cost is not pre-written as the loss of our soul. It’s written in our policies, our ethics, and our courage to treat AI as a servant of human flourishing rather than as a surrogate deity.

Progress is not free — but neither is fear. The challenge is to engage these systems without surrendering our agency, so that the “sphere” we create is not a prison, but a commons.

Would you like me to make the tone more polemical (matching the original’s rhetorical intensity) or more measured and scholarly (like a philosophical rebuttal)?