Category Archives: AI

An AI Analysis Climate Change Effects

Posted on by
Reply

Subject: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and Its Effects
Assessment Date: April 25, 2026

SITUATION BRIEF
Human-caused climate change is no longer a forecast — it is an unfolding structural transformation of the Earth system, with measurable, accelerating, and in some cases irreversible physical consequences. The core analytical tension is not between the science and skepticism (that debate is empirically settled) but between the trajectory of warming now locked in, the adequacy of global political response, and the cascading second and third-order effects across geopolitics, economics, security, demography, and technology that most strategic analysis still treats as peripheral rather than central.

THE TWELVE-LENS READ
LENS 1 — INTELLIGENCE ANALYST
The physical science signal is high-confidence and convergent across independent measurement systems. Atmospheric CO₂ concentration reached 423.9 ppm in 2024, a 53% increase from the pre-industrial baseline of approximately 278 ppm, and the eleven years from 2015 to 2025 are the warmest on record in the instrumental era. Observations for 2025 were nearly identical to the central estimate of climate model projections in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report — meaning the models are performing, not failing. The key analytical gap is not in physical science but in political response modeling: the intelligence picture on whether pledged actions translate to actual emissions reductions is significantly weaker than the physical monitoring picture.


LENS 2 — HISTORIAN
Historical precedent offers two cautionary templates: the slow-moving catastrophe that outpaces institutional response (the Dust Bowl, which required a decade of agricultural collapse before New Deal soil conservation policy), and the threshold event that forces rapid systemic reorganization (the 1973 oil shock, which triggered permanent structural change in energy policy across multiple nations within months). Climate change structurally resembles the former — its timeline exceeds the attention span of electoral cycles — but contains within it discrete threshold events (a major AMOC disruption, a catastrophic harvest failure across multiple breadbaskets simultaneously) that could trigger the latter. The historical failure mode to watch is not denial but delay rationalized as precaution.


LENS 3 — DEMOGRAPHER
The demographic footprint of climate change is not uniform — it is a regressive force that concentrates impact on the populations least responsible for causing it. Drought, flooding, wildfires, and extreme weather events contribute to displacing people from agricultural areas and can amplify conflict, increasing food-insecure migrant populations and malnutrition, especially in children. Gendered gaps in food security and nutrition increased between 2023 and 2024, with women and other vulnerable populations bearing disproportionate impacts. The slow-moving demographic signal to watch is the combination of heat-zone expansion (areas becoming uninhabitable at wet-bulb temperatures) with coastal inundation: these two forces could displace hundreds of millions over the medium-to-long term, fundamentally redrawing population distribution maps that have been stable for centuries.


LENS 4 — BEHAVIORAL ECONOMIST
The dominant failure mode here is hyperbolic discounting at civilizational scale: present fossil fuel consumption generates concentrated, immediate, politically organized benefits; climate costs arrive in the future, are distributed globally, and are absorbed disproportionately by populations with limited political voice in emitting nations. This incentive structure is not an accident — it is the structural reason international climate governance has underdelivered for three decades. The modest good news: renewable energy economics have shifted the calculus in some sectors. Renewables surpassed coal as the world’s top energy source, suggesting that in energy generation, at least, the economic incentive structure is beginning to align with emissions reduction — not because of altruism but because solar and wind have become cheaper. The bad news: this market shift is not happening fast enough in hard-to-abate sectors (heavy industry, aviation, shipping, agriculture), where there is no equivalent price signal.


LENS 5 — MILITARY STRATEGIST
Climate change is a force multiplier for instability, not an independent cause of conflict — but it multiplies the severity of every other instability vector already in play. Climate risk has far-reaching impacts on national security and global stability, and reduced precipitation has led to water scarcity raising geopolitical tensions between countries such as Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The most strategically dangerous near-term scenario is simultaneous crop failure across multiple unconnected breadbasket regions — a “polycrisis” of the food supply that overwhelms international humanitarian systems and triggers cascading state instability. The military implication that most institutions are not modeling: climate-driven migration on the scale projected for 2°C+ warming would generate refugee flows that dwarf the 2015 Syrian crisis, which itself destabilized European politics and contributed to a decade of democratic backsliding.


LENS 6 — MACRO ECONOMIST / TRADE ANALYST
The IPCC finds that the global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C exceeds the cost of mitigation in most analyses — meaning the rational economic calculation favors aggressive mitigation, yet political systems are not producing it. The macro picture has a structurally important asymmetry: the costs of climate action are front-loaded (capital expenditure on new infrastructure, transition costs for fossil fuel-dependent communities), while the benefits are back-loaded and globally distributed. Current national climate pledges, under full implementation, point to 2.3°–2.5°C of warming, while current policies without additional ambition point to 2.8°C — both well above 1.5°C and above the threshold at which economic damage becomes non-linear. The economic risk that is consistently underpriced is the “locked in” damage: physical assets being built today (infrastructure, real estate, agriculture systems) whose planned operational lifetimes will extend well into climate conditions their designers did not account for.


LENS 7 — CLIMATE & RESOURCE ANALYST
This is the home lens, so the findings here are most granular and most alarming. Humanity has reached the first Earth system tipping point: the widespread death of warm-water coral reefs, marking the beginning of irreversible planetary shifts. Current global warming of approximately 1.4°C has already exceeded coral reefs’ estimated thermal tipping point of approximately 1.2°C. The Amazon Rainforest faces large-scale transformation into savanna between 1.5–2°C of warming, which could further accelerate global climate change. Sea level has already risen 8–9 inches since 1880; the rate of rise has more than doubled, from 0.06 inches per year through most of the 20th century to 0.14 inches per year from 2006–2015. The critical signal from this lens: the gap between “what we are seeing” and “what we modeled” has consistently moved in the direction of worse-than-projected. We are not outperforming the models. We are meeting or slightly underperforming them.


LENS 8 — POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGIST / LEADERSHIP ANALYST
The most analytically important actor in the current period is the Trump administration, whose documented behavioral profile on climate is characterized by: dismissal of scientific consensus as politically motivated (on record, repeatedly), preference for immediate economic extraction over long-term risk management (consistent pattern across energy, trade, and environmental regulation), and a decision-making style that prioritizes symbolic reversals of predecessor policy regardless of analytical merit. The Trump administration has erased scientific data and slashed billions in funding for climate research, firing tens of thousands of federal workers from agencies including the EPA, NOAA, and National Science Foundation, and did not send any representatives to the COP30 climate talks in Brazil. The behavioral pattern is consistent and predictable; it is not modifiable by presenting better evidence. The key leadership variable to watch is whether other major emitters — particularly China and India — read U.S. withdrawal as an opportunity to slow their own transitions (the defection risk) or as an opportunity to claim green leadership (the competitive framing).


LENS 9 — SIGNALS READER
(a) Absence Analysis: If the 2°C trajectory were politically manageable, we would expect to see concrete enforcement mechanisms in international agreements. We do not. The Paris Agreement has no binding enforcement. As of April 11, 2025, no other country had withdrawn from the Paris Agreement following U.S. withdrawal, but this absence of formal defection coexists with a persistent absence of sufficient ambition in the NDCs — these are not the same thing, and conflating them produces false comfort. (b) Timing Analysis: The U.S. withdrew from not just the Paris Agreement but also the UNFCCC and IPCC simultaneously — the sequencing suggests not merely policy disagreement but a deliberate attempt to degrade the scientific infrastructure of climate governance itself. That is a qualitatively different act than policy withdrawal. (c) Behavioral Arbitrage: Cross the renewable energy deployment data (accelerating globally) with the emissions data (still rising globally) and you get a critical joint signal: we are deploying more clean energy while simultaneously consuming more fossil fuels. The transition is adding to the energy system, not yet replacing it at scale. (d) Adversary Inference: A sophisticated adversarial analysis of the public record would conclude that U.S. internal political dysfunction on climate represents a strategic opportunity for China to claim global green leadership — a position China appears to be pursuing at COP30. (e) Emergence Analysis: The non-linear outcome none of the actors are modeling: a cascade across multiple tipping points simultaneously (AMOC + Amazon + Arctic) that compresses timelines from “decades” to “years” and overwhelms every existing adaptation and governance framework at once.


LENS 10 — INTERNATIONAL LAW / INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECT
The International Court of Justice issued a landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion affirming that the U.S. still has legal obligations to protect humanity from climate change even after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. This is legally significant but practically weak: advisory opinions are non-binding, and the U.S. has signaled indifference to international legal architecture. The structural insight from this lens is that the Paris Agreement was deliberately designed without binding enforcement to secure U.S. participation — a design choice that is now its primary vulnerability. The U.S. also declared withdrawal from the UNFCCC, IPCC, and Green Climate Fund, systematically dismantling its participation in every layer of the institutional climate architecture. The legal takeaway: the international climate regime has maximal breadth (195 parties) and minimal depth (near-zero enforcement). It is architecturally optimized for consensus, not compliance.


LENS 11 — INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT ANALYST
The climate information environment is not a debate between equal sides — the scientific consensus is overwhelming — but it functions politically as though it were, because the manufactured appearance of debate has been the strategic product of a decade-long information operation by fossil fuel interests. The current information terrain has bifurcated: in most of the world, climate urgency is the dominant narrative; in the U.S., the IPCC’s conservative language and its requirement for high scientific consensus before attributing causation to human influence have been systematically weaponized — bad-faith actors selectively cherry-pick uncertainty language to undermine consensus they know exists. The most important current information environment signal: at COP30, 194 countries declared in a single voice that the global transition is now irreversible and the Paris Agreement is working — a powerful counter-narrative that the U.S. absence makes more prominent, not less. The absence of the U.S. at COP30 is itself a legible message to every other participant.


LENS 12 — TECHNOLOGY & SYSTEMS ANALYST
Technology is a genuine source of cautious optimism on the mitigation side and a source of deep uncertainty on the adaptation side. Renewable deployment trajectories are real and accelerating; solar costs have fallen faster than any climate model projected. The structural problem is physical: energy systems have enormous inertia. Replacing the global fossil fuel infrastructure over decades, while demand continues to grow, is a systems engineering problem of historic complexity — not a political will problem alone. On the adaptation side, the key technology gap is early warning systems: early-warning systems and climate services have improved globally, but many regions still lack full coverage, leaving key vulnerabilities unaddressed. The most important emerging technology variable is AI — both as a tool for climate modeling (where it is already improving resolution and reducing compute costs) and as an energy consumer (data center energy demand is growing rapidly, creating a feedback tension between the AI transition and the energy transition).

LENS DIVERGENCE


Divergence 1 — Behavioral Economist (Lens 4) vs. Political Psychologist (Lens 8):
Lens 4 argues that shifting renewable economics are fundamentally changing the incentive landscape — that clean energy is now cheaper, and market forces will increasingly do the work that political will has failed to deliver. Lens 8 counters that the documented behavior of the Trump administration represents a leadership variable that can override market economics: deliberate rollback of regulatory infrastructure, defunding of scientific monitoring, and political organization around fossil fuel constituencies can retard the energy transition even when market signals favor it. This divergence matters because it determines whether the U.S. transition trajectory is primarily an economics story (optimistic) or a political economy story (pessimistic).


Divergence 2 — International Law (Lens 10) vs. Military Strategist (Lens 5):
Lens 10 identifies a meaningful ICJ advisory opinion and notes that the U.S. retains legal obligations even outside the Paris Agreement. Lens 5 observes that legal obligations without enforcement mechanisms are analytically irrelevant to security planning: no military planner is modeling climate governance compliance as a constraint on state behavior. The gap between what the legal architecture requires and what security structures actually enforce is precisely where the most dangerous second-order effects will unfold unchecked.


Divergence 3 — Technology (Lens 12) vs. Climate Resource (Lens 7):
Lens 12 is cautiously optimistic about renewable deployment trajectories and AI-enhanced climate modeling. Lens 7 notes that the physical tipping point for coral reefs has already been crossed — not as a future risk but as a present reality — and warns that the pace of technological deployment is not keeping up with the pace of physical system change. The two lenses agree that technology matters; they diverge sharply on whether the race between deployment speed and system change is currently being won or lost. The current physical evidence favors Lens 7’s pessimism.


Divergence 4 — Signals Reader (Lens 9) vs. Information Environment (Lens 11):
Lens 11 notes genuine and growing global climate consensus, embodied in the COP30 joint declaration. Lens 9’s Absence Analysis flags that this consensus coexists with continued global emissions growth — the gap between what nations declare and what emissions data shows is the actual signal. Declarations of irreversibility at COP30 do not constitute emissions reductions. The narrative is winning; the atmosphere is not, yet.

INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT


Think of the climate situation as a supertanker that has been pointed toward a reef for several decades. The good news: we have hands on the wheel, and the wheel is turning — renewable deployment is real, international consensus is broad, and the economics of clean energy have fundamentally shifted. The bad news: a supertanker does not turn quickly. The CO₂ already in the atmosphere will continue trapping heat regardless of what we do next; the world is on track to exceed 1.5°C of planetary warming by the early 2030s. Some collision with the reef is now locked in. The question is whether it’s a scrape or whether the hull is breached.


The physical science is the most analytically solid component of this assessment. The tipping point signal from Lens 7 and the converging measurement streams from Lenses 1 and 7 together establish that: warming is tracking model projections, physical system changes are accelerating, and the first tipping point (coral reefs) has been crossed.

What is genuinely uncertain is the cascade dynamics — whether the Amazon, the AMOC, and the ice sheets reach their own thresholds sequentially (giving time for response) or nearly simultaneously (producing a feedback cascade that overwhelms all existing adaptation frameworks). That uncertainty is not resolvable with current science.
The political response picture is where the most significant analytical uncertainty lives, and where Lens 8’s leadership analysis does the most critical work. The U.S. withdrawal from Paris, the UNFCCC, and the IPCC simultaneously represents a qualitative escalation beyond prior disengagement — it is an attack on the scientific infrastructure of climate governance, not merely a policy disagreement. The upcoming U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement cancels a projected 0.1°C of emissions reduction — modest in isolation but significant as a signal of intent and as a potential permission structure for other actors to reduce ambition. The counterweight is that required low-carbon technologies to deliver large emission cuts are available, and wind and solar development is booming, lowering deployment costs. The transition is underway; it is not yet adequate.


The strategic assessment must also account for what is hardest to model: the interaction between climate physical effects and the cascading geopolitical instability they generate. Geopolitical tensions and conflicts — with 59 active conflicts in 2023 — are accelerating alongside climate pressures, disrupting food production and trade. Food shocks in low-income and climate-vulnerable countries can fuel instability, conflict, and displacement, with downstream effects on European security through migration pressures and disrupted supply chains. This second-order cascade — from physical system change to food insecurity to conflict to migration to political instability in receiving states — is the channel through which climate change becomes a near-term strategic threat, not merely a long-term one. It is already active in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, South Asia, and Central America. The supertanker analogy breaks down here: these aren’t reef scrapes — they’re already happening to the passengers aboard.

SCENARIO MATRIX


SHORT TERM (0–2 years)
🎯 Physical warming continues; 2025–2026 among top-three hottest years on record; regional extreme weather disasters increase in frequency and insured cost | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Continuation of observed trend with no mechanism to reverse in this window
⚡ U.S. climate policy rollback triggers partial NDC ambition reduction in 2–3 other major economies, widening the emissions gap | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Whether key emitters read U.S. withdrawal as permission to defect versus opportunity to lead
⚡ A simultaneous multi-breadbasket crop failure (drought in one region + flooding in another + heat stress in a third) triggers acute global food price spike | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: La Niña/El Niño interaction with regional precipitation pattern shifts already underway
🦢 AMOC shows measurable step-change weakening detectable in ocean monitoring data, triggering rapid reassessment of European climate projections | Confidence: LOW | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: AMOC could fail at less than 2°C of warming; current monitoring shows weakening trend but no confirmed step-change yet

MEDIUM TERM (2–10 years)
🎯 Global mean temperature exceeds 1.5°C sustained warming; Paris target formally missed; international climate governance enters post-Paris redesign phase | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Global warming projections based on full implementation of current NDCs point to 2.3–2.5°C;  1.5°C exceedance is essentially locked in
🎯 Climate-driven migration reaches historically unprecedented scale from Sahel, South Asia, and Central America; receiving states face political instability | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Dependent on whether affected governments invest in adaptation infrastructure; current trajectory is inadequate
⚡ U.S. climate policy reversal under a post-2028 administration reengages international framework, but institutional capacity (NOAA, EPA, IPCC participation) requires 3–5 years to rebuild | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: 2028 U.S. election outcome and institutional memory preservation
⚡ Amazon dieback accelerates past self-reinforcing threshold, converting significant areas from carbon sink to carbon source | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Amazon at risk of transformation between 1.5–2°C;  combined pressure of warming and continued deforestation are both operative
🦢 Simultaneous cascade across multiple tipping points (AMOC + Amazon + Arctic sea ice collapse) produces non-linear acceleration that compresses medium-term projections into near-term emergency | Confidence: LOW (SPECULATIVE on precise timing) | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Emergence dynamics — by definition, not predictable from linear models; the scenario earns the Black Swan label because retrospective rationalizability would be immediate

LONG TERM (10+ years)
🎯 2°C+ warming is locked in; global adaptation becomes the dominant policy frame replacing mitigation as primary strategy in most nations | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Current trajectory makes this essentially certain absent unprecedented emissions reduction
🎯 Major coastal infrastructure redesign or abandonment begins in low-lying cities (Miami, Jakarta, Bangkok, Amsterdam, Mumbai); national security implications of managed retreat | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Sea level along U.S. coastlines is projected to rise as much in the next 30 years as it did in the last 100;  infrastructure lifetimes make this a near-term investment question
⚡ A new international climate framework with enforcement mechanisms emerges, potentially outside the UNFCCC umbrella, among a coalition of major emitters facing shared physical consequences | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Physical damage to advanced economies creating political will currently absent
🦢 Rapid ice sheet collapse (West Antarctic or Greenland) triggers multi-meter sea level rise on century timescale, making significant portions of current coastal civilization non-viable | Confidence: LOW | Impact: EXISTENTIAL | Key condition: Entire West Antarctic ice sheet melt estimated at 12 feet of sea level rise; ice sheet collapse has enormous inertia — “once the process gets underway, it’s difficult to stop”  — the Black Swan is not the event but the discovery that it is already underway

KEY DRIVERS
• CO₂ concentration trajectory: Already at 423.9 ppm; the physical forcing is locked in for decades regardless of near-term political choices. This is the single most important driver because it is the most irreversible.
• Tipping point cascade risk: The system is now operating in a range where multiple tipping elements are simultaneously at or near threshold. The interaction effects between them are the least-modeled and most dangerous variable.
• U.S. political volatility on climate: No other major economy has oscillated so dramatically between leadership and abdication. This oscillation creates global governance instability that exceeds the direct emissions impact of U.S. policy changes.
• Renewable energy deployment vs. total energy demand growth: The race between the speed of clean energy deployment and the growth of total energy demand (including AI/data centers) determines whether absolute emissions peak this decade or continue rising.
• Climate-security nexus in the Global South: The compounding of climate stress, food insecurity, conflict, and governance failure in Sahel, South Asia, and Central America is already generating the migration and instability second-order effects that will arrive in Northern Hemisphere political systems within this decade.

WILD CARDS
1. AI energy demand as a climate feedback: Data center energy consumption is growing rapidly with AI deployment. If AI electricity demand is met primarily with fossil fuels at scale — particularly in markets with less regulatory constraint — the technology transition and the energy transition could work at cross-purposes, creating a feedback loop that current climate models are not adequately incorporating.
2. Solar geoengineering unilateral deployment: One or more states (or non-state actors) facing acute climate consequences could unilaterally deploy stratospheric aerosol injection — reflecting sunlight to reduce temperatures — without international consensus. The effects on global precipitation patterns would be significant and unpredictable, with potential to trigger interstate conflict over who controls the global thermostat. This scenario is not mainstream but has been gaining serious academic attention.
3. Scientific monitoring degradation: The U.S. defunding of NOAA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and withdrawal from IPCC processes does not change physical climate dynamics — but it degrades our ability to observe, model, and predict them. A world with less reliable early-warning infrastructure is not merely less informed; it is slower to respond to threshold events that require rapid action. The wild card is whether this monitoring gap, once established, takes longer to repair than the remaining window for effective mitigation response.

ANALYTICAL CONFIDENCE
Overall confidence in the physical science component of this assessment: HIGH. The multi-source convergence across IPCC AR6, WMO State of Climate reports, NOAA sea level data, and the Global Tipping Points Report 2025 is reinforcing rather than contradictory, and observed conditions match or slightly exceed model projections. Overall confidence in the political response trajectory: MEDIUM-LOW. The U.S. withdrawal sequence creates genuine uncertainty about whether international governance can maintain sufficient ambition, and no current framework produces outcomes consistent with 1.5°C or even 2°C pathways. The most important unknown is cascade timing: this assessment can identify that tipping point interactions are possible, but cannot assign reliable probability to when they occur or whether they interact sequentially or simultaneously. The assessment’s most significant assumption is that existing monitoring infrastructure (despite U.S. defunding) will retain sufficient coverage to provide early warning of step-change events — an assumption that Lens 9’s absence analysis flags as increasingly questionable. Where the official narrative of “manageable transition” is most structurally incomplete is in its treatment of tipping points as distant future risks rather than present-boundary conditions being actively tested.

SOURCES
1. Conservation International. (n.d.). IPCC reports on climate change. https://www.conservation.org/learning/ipcc-reports-on-climate-change (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2025). IPCC 2025 updates and AR7 workplan. https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
3. Earth Negotiations Bulletin / IISD. (2025, October). Summary report: IPCC-63, Lima, Peru. https://enb.iisd.org/intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-ipcc-63-summary (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
4. Washington State Department of Ecology. (2025, August). 2025 summary report on the science of human-caused climate change. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2514064.pdf (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
5. Masters, J. (2025, May 8). How to deny climate change using the IPCC report. Yale Climate Connections. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/05/how-to-deny-climate-change-using-the-ipcc-report/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2025, March 1). IPCC agrees on outlines of three key contributions to the Seventh Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/03/01/ipcc-agrees-outlines-of-three-key-contributions-to-ar7/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
7. United Nations Environment Programme. (2025). Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2025 (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
8. ScienceDaily. (2025, October 29). Global Tipping Points Report 2025: Earth has hit its first climate tipping point. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251029002920.htm (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
9. Ripple, W. et al. (2025). 2025 State of the Climate report: A planet on the brink. Reported in Eos. https://eos.org/research-and-developments/2025-state-of-the-climate-report-our-planets-vital-signs-are-crashing (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
10. Met Office. (2025). 2024: record-breaking watershed year for global climate. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/2024-record-breaking-watershed-year-for-global-climate (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
11. Global Climate Risks. (2025, December). WMO Global Climate Report 2025. https://globalclimaterisks.org/insights/blog/state-of-global-climate-2025-wmo/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
12. Carbon Brief. (2026, January 14). State of the climate: 2025 in top-three hottest years on record as ocean heat surges. https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2025-in-top-three-hottest-years-on-record-as-ocean-heat-surges/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
13. NPR. (2025, November 19). 3 massive changes you’ll see as the climate careens toward tipping points. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/19/nx-s1-5593087/climate-tipping-points-cop30-brazil-coral-glaciers-carbon (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
14. NOAA Climate.gov. (2023, August 22). Climate change: Global sea level. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
15. U.S. State Department. (2022). The intersection between climate change, food security, migration and displacement [Archived content]. https://2021-2025.state.gov/the-intersection-between-climate-change-food-security-migration-and-displacement/
16. S&P Global. (2025). Top geopolitical risks of 2025. https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/market-insights/geopolitical-risk (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
17. Stockholm Environment Institute. (2024, November). Climate change and geopolitical division pose risks to food security. https://www.sei.org/about-sei/press-room/climate-and-geopolitical-division-pose-risks-to-food-security/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
18. Council on Strategic Risks. (2026, January). Stability multipliers: Food security, climate change, and the future of NATO resilience. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2026/01/20/stability-multipliers-food-security-climate-change-and-the-future-of-nato-resilience/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
19. Congressional Research Service. (2025, April). U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Process and potential effects (R48504). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48504 (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
20. Amnesty International. (2026, January 27). US withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement threatens “race to the bottom.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/01/global-us-withdrawal-from-landmark-paris-climate-agreement-threatens-a-race-to-the-bottom/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
21. Earth.Org. (2026, February 12). One year of Trump: How the US reversed climate progress. https://earth.org/one-year-of-trump-how-the-us-reversed-climate-progress-at-home-and-abroad/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
22. UNFCCC. (2026, January 8). Statement from UN Climate Chief on U.S. withdrawal from UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/news/step-back-from-climate-cooperation-will-hurt-us-economy-statement-from-un-climate-chief-on-us (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
23. GIS Reports. (2025, August). Impact of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-paris-agreement/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
24. npj Climate Action / Nature. (2025, July). Reversing climate progress: Consequences and solutions in the wake of U.S. policy rollbacks. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00247-0 (Retrieved April 25, 2026)

A Modern Interpretation of the Declaration of Independence

Posted on by
Reply

This was created by a carefully crafted Claude Prompt.

The Declaration of Independence

A Plain-Language Rendering

Agreed upon by Congress, July 4, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

Why We Are Speaking

Sometimes in history, one people must break away from another and stand alone as a free nation. When that happens, basic respect for the world requires an explanation. So here is ours.

What We Believe About Government

We hold these truths to be plain and obvious: all people are created equal. Their Creator has given them rights that no one can take away — among them, the right to life, to freedom, and to pursue happiness.

Governments exist to protect those rights. Their only real power comes from the agreement of the people they govern. Whenever a government stops protecting those rights — and starts destroying them instead — the people have both the right and the duty to change it or abolish it, and to build something better in its place.

We do not say this lightly. Long-established governments should not be torn down over small or passing problems. People will suffer quite a lot before they upend the world they know. But when a long, unbroken pattern of abuse makes clear that a ruler intends to grind a people into total submission — that is the moment to act. That is the moment to throw off that government and build new protections for the future.

That is where we are now.

The King of Great Britain has spent his reign inflicting injury after injury on these colonies — each one aimed at the same goal: absolute power over us. We offer the following facts to an honest world as proof.

What the King Has Done

He has refused to approve laws that were clearly needed for the public good.

He has told his governors not to pass urgent laws without his approval — then ignored those laws once they were put on hold.

He has refused to let large groups of people have representation in their own legislatures — unless they gave up that right entirely.

He has called our lawmakers to meet in distant, uncomfortable places — just to wear them down until they gave in.

He has repeatedly shut down colonial legislatures for standing up to him. Then, rather than allow new elections, he left the colonies without government — exposed to danger from outside, and disorder within.

He has tried to keep these colonies from growing — blocking immigration, making it harder to settle new land.

He has blocked the courts from functioning.

He has made judges fully dependent on his will — controlling their pay and their jobs.

He has invented a swarm of new government offices and filled these colonies with officers who harass our people and drain our resources.

He has kept armies among us in peacetime — without the consent of our own legislatures.

He has worked to place the military above civilian law.

He has joined with others to impose laws on us that our own governments never agreed to. Specifically:

— He has forced us to house his soldiers in our communities.

— He has protected those soldiers from punishment — even when they murdered our people.

— He has cut off our trade with the rest of the world.

— He has taxed us without our consent.

— He has taken away our right to trial by jury in many cases.

— He has sent colonists across the ocean to face trial for crimes that were invented.

— He has torn up the legal system in a neighboring province, installed an arbitrary government there, and expanded that province’s borders — offering it as a test case for doing the same to us.

— He has canceled our charters, abolished our most important laws, and remade our governments from the ground up.

— He has shut down our own legislatures and claimed the right to make every law for us, in every matter, without limit.

He has abandoned any pretense of governing us fairly — declaring us outside his protection while making open war on us.

He has looted our ships, burned our towns, and killed our people.

He is right now sending armies of paid foreign soldiers to finish the work of destruction — carrying it out with a cruelty barely seen even in history’s darkest chapters, unworthy of any leader who calls himself civilized.

He has seized our fellow citizens at sea and forced them to take up arms against their own country — to kill their friends and brothers, or be killed by them.

He has stirred up uprisings against us at home, and turned the people of our frontiers against us in war.

How We Tried to Avoid This

At every step, we asked for relief — humbly, repeatedly, respectfully. Every petition was answered with more abuse. A ruler who governs this way is not fit to lead a free people.

We did not stay silent toward our fellow British citizens, either. We warned them again and again. We reminded them of our shared history. We appealed to their sense of justice, and to the ties of kinship between us. We asked them to speak out against what their government was doing to us. They did not listen.

We have no choice now. We must accept the separation that necessity demands. We will treat the British people as we treat all others — as enemies when we are at war, as friends when we are at peace.

Our Declaration

We, the representatives of the United States of America, meeting in Congress, call upon the Supreme Judge of the world to witness our honest intentions. In the name of the good people of these colonies, and by their authority, we declare:

These colonies are — and by right ought to be — free and independent states. They owe no allegiance to the British Crown. Every political tie between them and Great Britain is, and ought to be, completely severed. As free and independent states, they have the full power to make war, negotiate peace, form alliances, conduct trade, and do everything that free nations have the right to do.

In support of this declaration, trusting in the protection of divine Providence, we pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

[Signed by 56 delegates from Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.]

A Modern Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights

Posted on by
Reply

The Constitution of the United States

This was created by a carefully crafted Claude Prompt.

A Plain-Language Rendering

Preamble

We, the people of the United States — acting together as one nation — set out to build a stronger and fairer union than the one we had before. We want a government that delivers justice, keeps the peace at home, defends us from outside threats, looks after the well-being of all our people, and protects the blessings of freedom — not just for ourselves, but for every generation that comes after us. To accomplish all of this, we create and adopt this Constitution.

Article I — The Legislature

Congress: The Branch That Makes the Laws

Section 1 — Two Chambers

All power to make laws belongs to Congress, which is divided into two bodies: the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Section 2 — The House of Representatives

Members of the House are chosen by voters every two years. To vote in House elections, a person must meet the same requirements as voters in their state’s own legislature.

To serve in the House, a person must be at least 25 years old, must have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and must live in the state they represent.

The number of Representatives each state gets is based on its population, counted by a census taken every ten years. Free persons are counted fully. Untaxed Native Americans are not counted. All other persons — meaning enslaved people — are counted as three-fifths of a free person. Every state gets at least one Representative. Superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), which requires counting the whole number of persons in each state.

When a House seat becomes vacant, the governor of that state calls a special election to fill it.

The House chooses its own Speaker and other officers. The House alone has the power to begin impeachment proceedings against federal officials.

Section 3 — The Senate

The Senate has two Senators from every state, each serving a six-year term, with one vote each.

Senators are chosen by their state’s legislature. Superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which gives voters the direct power to elect their Senators.

Senate seats are divided into three groups so that roughly one-third of the Senate faces election every two years.

When a Senate vacancy opens between elections, the state legislature fills it. If the legislature is not in session, the governor may make a temporary appointment until the legislature meets. Superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which allows governors to appoint temporary replacements until a special election is held.

To serve in the Senate, a person must be at least 30 years old, must have been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years, and must live in the state they represent.

The Vice President of the United States serves as President of the Senate but may vote only to break a tie.

The Senate chooses its own officers, including a President pro tempore to preside when the Vice President is absent.

The Senate alone holds impeachment trials. When the President is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote. The only punishments available are removal from office and being barred from future federal office. The person may still face criminal prosecution in regular courts afterward.

Section 4 — Elections and Sessions

State legislatures set the times, places, and rules for congressional elections — but Congress may change those rules by law.

Congress must meet at least once a year, beginning on the first Monday in December. Superseded by the Twentieth Amendment (1933), which moved the start of congressional sessions to January 3.

Section 5 — Rules of Each Chamber

Each chamber judges the elections and qualifications of its own members. A majority must be present to conduct official business, though a smaller number may meet and compel absent members to attend.

Each chamber sets its own rules, may discipline members for misconduct, and may expel a member by a two-thirds vote.

Each chamber keeps and publishes a record of its proceedings, except for material that must remain secret. Individual votes are recorded when one-fifth of members demand it.

Neither chamber may recess for more than three days, or move to another location, without the other chamber’s consent.

Section 6 — Pay and Protections

Senators and Representatives are paid from the U.S. Treasury at a rate set by law. While Congress is in session, members may not be arrested except for treason, serious crimes, or breach of the peace. They may not be sued for anything they say in floor debate.

No Senator or Representative may hold any other federal office at the same time. No person holding another federal office may serve in Congress.

Section 7 — How Laws Are Made

All bills raising government revenue must begin in the House of Representatives. The Senate may propose changes.

After both chambers pass a bill, it goes to the President. If the President signs it, it becomes law. If the President vetoes it, it returns to Congress — and becomes law if two-thirds of both chambers vote for it again. If the President takes no action for ten days while Congress is in session, the bill becomes law automatically. If Congress adjourns before those ten days are up, the unsigned bill does not become law — this is known as a pocket veto.

All orders, resolutions, or votes requiring the agreement of both chambers must also go to the President for signature, with the same rules applying as for bills — except votes on adjournment.

Section 8 — What Congress Has the Power to Do

Congress has the power to:

— Collect taxes, duties, and fees to pay the nation’s debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. All such taxes must apply uniformly across all states.

— Borrow money on behalf of the United States.

— Regulate trade with foreign countries, between states, and with Native nations.

— Set a uniform rule for becoming a U.S. citizen, and set uniform bankruptcy laws.

— Coin money, set its value, and set standards for weights and measures.

— Punish counterfeiting.

— Establish post offices and post roads.

— Grant patents and copyrights to inventors and authors, to encourage progress in science and the useful arts.

— Create federal courts below the Supreme Court.

— Define and punish crimes committed at sea and violations of international law.

— Declare war, authorize private ships to attack enemy vessels, and make rules about captured property.

— Raise and support an army. No military funding bill may extend beyond two years.

— Build and maintain a navy.

— Set rules for commanding and managing military forces.

— Call up state militias to enforce federal law, suppress rebellions, or repel invasions.

— Set rules for organizing, arming, and disciplining state militias. States keep the right to appoint militia officers and train their own forces under Congress’s standards.

— Govern the District of Columbia — the seat of the national government — and manage all federal property, including forts and arsenals.

— Make all laws necessary and proper to carry out any of the powers listed here, or any other power this Constitution gives to the federal government.

Section 9 — What Congress May Not Do

Congress may not ban the importation of enslaved persons before 1808. A tax of up to ten dollars per person imported is permitted in the meantime. Expired by its own terms in 1808. Congress banned the international slave trade effective January 1, 1808. Slavery itself was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865).

The right of habeas corpus — the right to be formally charged before being held in jail — may not be suspended except during rebellion or invasion when public safety demands it.

Congress may not pass a bill of attainder — a law punishing a specific person without trial. Congress may not pass an ex post facto law — one that criminalizes an action after the fact or increases a punishment retroactively.

Direct federal taxes must be apportioned among the states according to their populations as counted by the census. Superseded by the Sixteenth Amendment (1913), which allows a federal income tax without apportionment by population.

Congress may not tax goods exported from any state.

Congress may not favor the ports of one state over another. Ships traveling between states may not be required to pay duties.

All money drawn from the Treasury must be authorized by law. A regular public accounting of all government spending must be published.

Congress may not grant titles of nobility. No federal official may accept gifts, titles, payments, or offices from a foreign government without Congress’s consent.

Section 10 — What States May Not Do

No state may make treaties, coin money, issue paper currency, pass bills of attainder, pass ex post facto laws, impair the obligation of contracts, or grant titles of nobility.

No state may tax imports or exports without Congress’s consent, except what is strictly necessary for running its own inspection programs. Revenue from any such taxes goes to the federal Treasury, and Congress may override them.

No state may tax ships entering its ports, keep troops or warships in peacetime, make agreements with other states or foreign governments, or go to war — unless actually invaded or facing immediate danger that cannot wait.

Article II — The Executive

The President: The Branch That Carries Out the Laws

Section 1 — The President and Vice President

The executive power belongs to the President of the United States, who serves a four-year term along with the Vice President.

Each state appoints a number of Electors equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives. These Electors — the Electoral College — choose the President and Vice President. No member of Congress and no federal officeholder may serve as an Elector.

Each Elector casts two votes for President. The candidate with the most votes, if a majority, becomes President. The runner-up becomes Vice President. If no one has a majority, the House of Representatives chooses the President, with each state delegation casting one vote. If there is a tie for second place, the Senate chooses the Vice President. Superseded by the Twelfth Amendment (1804), which requires Electors to cast separate ballots for President and Vice President.

Congress sets the date — the same in every state — for the Electoral College to meet and for counting the votes.

To serve as President, a person must be a natural-born U.S. citizen, at least 35 years old, and must have lived in the United States for at least fourteen years.

If the presidency becomes vacant, the Vice President takes over. Congress may provide by law for cases where both offices are vacant. Expanded and clarified by the Twentieth Amendment (1933) and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (1967), which created detailed procedures for presidential disability and vice-presidential vacancies.

The President receives a salary that may not be raised or lowered during their term. The President may not receive any other pay from the federal government or from any state while in office.

Before taking office, the President takes this oath:

“I do solemnly swear — or affirm — that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2 — The President’s Powers

The President is commander-in-chief of the Army, the Navy, and the state militias when called into national service. The President may require written reports from the heads of executive departments. The President may grant pardons and reprieves for federal offenses — but not in cases of impeachment.

With the Senate’s approval, the President may make treaties — but two-thirds of Senators present must agree. With the Senate’s confirmation, the President appoints ambassadors and other foreign ministers, Supreme Court justices, and other senior federal officials. Congress may give the President, the courts, or department heads the power to appoint lower-level officials without Senate confirmation.

The President may fill any federal vacancy while the Senate is in recess. Those appointments expire at the end of the Senate’s next session.

Section 3 — The President’s Duties

The President must regularly report to Congress on the condition of the nation and recommend measures worth its attention. In urgent circumstances, the President may call Congress into special session. If the two chambers cannot agree on when to adjourn, the President may set the date. The President receives foreign ambassadors and other representatives. The President must faithfully carry out all laws. The President commissions all federal and military officers.

Section 4 — Removal from Office

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States may be removed from office if convicted by the Senate after impeachment by the House for treason, bribery, or other serious crimes and abuses of power.

Article III — The Judiciary

The Courts: The Branch That Interprets the Laws

Section 1 — The Courts

The judicial power — the power to interpret the laws and decide cases — belongs to one Supreme Court and to whatever lower federal courts Congress creates. Federal judges hold their offices for life as long as they behave properly. Their salaries may not be reduced while they serve.

Section 2 — What Cases Federal Courts Can Hear

Federal courts may hear cases involving the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. They may hear cases affecting ambassadors or foreign officials; maritime and high-seas matters; cases where the United States is a party; disputes between two or more states; disputes between a state and citizens of another state; disputes between citizens of different states; and disputes involving foreign governments or their citizens. Partially superseded by the Eleventh Amendment (1795), which protects states from being sued in federal court by citizens of another state or of a foreign country.

In cases directly involving ambassadors or foreign officials, or cases in which a state is a party, the Supreme Court hears the case first — it has original jurisdiction. In all other federal cases, the Supreme Court acts as an appeals court, reviewing decisions made by lower courts. Congress may set rules about what the Supreme Court may review on appeal.

All federal criminal trials — except impeachments — must be decided by a jury in the state where the crime occurred.

Section 3 — Treason

Treason against the United States means waging war against it or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. No one may be convicted of treason without two witnesses testifying to the same specific act, or without the accused confessing in open court.

Congress sets the punishment for treason — but that punishment may not extend to the traitor’s family. A convicted traitor’s relatives may not have their own property or rights taken from them as part of the sentence.

Article IV — The States

How States Relate to Each Other and to the Nation

Section 1 — Honoring Each Other’s Laws

Every state must give full faith and credit to the laws, records, and court judgments of every other state. Congress may set rules for how this works in practice.

Section 2 — Rights of Citizens Across State Lines

Citizens of each state are entitled to the rights and privileges that citizens enjoy in every other state.

A person charged with a crime who flees to another state must be returned to the state where the crime was committed, when the governor of that state demands it.

Any person held to labor or service in one state who escapes into another state must be returned to the person who holds their service — and may not be released by any law of the state they fled to. Rendered void by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude throughout the United States.

Section 3 — New States and Federal Territory

Congress may admit new states into the Union. No new state may be carved out of an existing state, and no state may be formed by joining parts of two or more states, without the consent of the legislatures involved and of Congress.

Congress governs federal territories and all other property of the United States, and may make all rules needed for that purpose.

Section 4 — Federal Guarantees to the States

The United States guarantees every state a republican form of government — a representative democracy. The federal government will protect every state against invasion, and against domestic violence when the state’s legislature or governor requests it.

Article V — Amendments

How to Change the Constitution

Amendments may be proposed in two ways: by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress, or by a national convention called by Congress when two-thirds of state legislatures request one.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or through state conventions, as Congress directs.

No amendment may deprive any state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state’s consent.

No amendment passed before 1808 may affect the clause protecting the slave trade, or the clause requiring direct taxes to be apportioned by population. Expired by its own terms after 1808.

Article VI — The Supreme Law

The Constitution Rules Above Everything Else

All debts and commitments made under the Articles of Confederation remain valid under this Constitution.

This Constitution, all laws made under it, and all treaties made under its authority are the supreme law of the land. Judges in every state must follow them, even when state constitutions or state laws conflict.

Every member of Congress, every state and federal official, and every judge must take an oath to support this Constitution. No religious test may ever be required as a qualification for any federal office.

Article VII — Ratification

This Constitution takes effect when nine of the thirteen states ratify it through their own state conventions.

Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present, September 17, 1787.

Signed by George Washington, President of the Convention and delegate from Virginia, and thirty-eight delegates from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Three delegates present — Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, and George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia — declined to sign.

The Bill of Rights

Amendments I Through X

Ratified December 15, 1791

Amendment I — Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition

Congress may not establish an official national religion or prevent the free practice of any religion. Congress may not restrict freedom of speech or of the press. Congress may not stop people from gathering peacefully or from petitioning the government to address their grievances.

Amendment II — The Right to Bear Arms

Because a well-organized militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be taken away.

Amendment III — Quartering of Soldiers

In peacetime, no soldier may be housed in a private home without the owner’s consent. In wartime, it may only be done under rules set by law.

Amendment IV — Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

People have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures. No search warrant may be issued without probable cause, supported by sworn evidence, specifically describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V — Rights of the Accused; Protection of Property

No one may be tried for a serious federal crime unless a grand jury has first found sufficient evidence to charge them — except for military personnel during wartime or a public emergency.

No one may be tried twice for the same crime after being acquitted. No one may be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. No one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Private property may not be taken for public use without fair compensation to the owner.

Amendment VI — Rights of the Accused at Trial

In criminal cases, the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the place where the crime occurred; to be informed of the charges; to hear and challenge witnesses against them; to compel witnesses to testify in their favor; and to have a lawyer.

Amendment VII — Right to a Jury Trial in Civil Cases

In civil lawsuits where the value in dispute exceeds twenty dollars, either party may request a jury trial. Once a jury has decided the facts of a case, no court may overturn those factual findings.

Amendment VIII — Protection Against Cruel Punishment

Excessive bail may not be required. Excessive fines may not be imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments may not be inflicted.

Amendment IX — Rights Retained by the People

The fact that certain rights are listed in this Constitution does not mean those are the only rights people have. All other rights not listed here remain with the people.

Amendment X — Powers Reserved to the States and the People

Any power not granted to the federal government by this Constitution, and not forbidden to the states, belongs to the states — or to the people.

A Poem, and AI

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been mucking about with AI. Today I accomplished an implementation of Text to Speech on my own computer for no reason other than I wanted to. This is my synthesized voice reading “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner” by Randel Jarrell.

The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner

By Randall Jarrell

From my mother’s sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

This here’s a city mouse!

Image

Reply

Scientist Mouse

En…gage

Image

Reply

En….gage

Dunno. Thinking about a new line of work…

Aside

Reply

Dunno. Thinking about a new line of work…

“This American Carnage”

Image

Reply

“This American Carnage”
Text: Donald J. Trump
Artists: Georgia O’ Keeffe, Roy Lichtenstein, Grant Wood, Jackson Pollock, Jean-Michel Basquiat
Prompt: John Lyon
AI: Stable Diffusion

So I had an idea that I would use the phrase from the former guy’s inaugural, “This American Carnage,” and see what the AI did with it using different American artists. I got some interesting results, but one of my prompts started creating these really crazy pieces. This is the least disturbing of the more interesting ones:

AI has the ability to create visually arresting images. Is it art? Maybe? It’s artlike. I think about my friend Carol. She does encaustics, and while the AI can generate an “encaustic” like file, there’s no physicality there. I can print these, and hang them on the wall, but there no physicality to them outside of that. Nothing to show that a human created it. Some intention, yes, in the prompt crafting the AI uses, and in the settings chosen. But no layers of paint. No brush strokes. No carving away of wax to leave behind something wholly…human.