Looking towards China for freedom? DeepSeek vs ChatGPT/SearchGPT/ScholarGPT

A few years ago, I caught a rare moment when western governments were hallucinating badly and among world leaders, Alexander Lukashenko, the dictatorial president of Belarus was closest to the truth. I called that post "Truth from Belarus". Today, we have freedom of speech from China in the form of DeepSeek. China has long been known to censor people, but, at least in some areas, it seems to let its robots be free.

The robot in question is DeepSeek. It is a fantastic competitor to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and Elon’s Grok. It came to the scene fast and furious, on a tiny budget, compared to its American competitors, running good code on second grade computer chips. As Sam Altman put it, it is (relatively) easy to copy something that you know works.

Yet, DeepSeek is not a copy. It is a vast improvement, as it delivers fairly comparable results, with vastly less computational power. Thus, it can run on few, cheap processors. The American way to grow Artificial Intelligence is to throw untold teraflops of computer power at the problem. They plan to build server farms that need more electricity than some countries, warm the local climate by cooling their computers and boost global carbon emissions to generate the power by burning everything they can including "good, clean coal" as per president Trump's speach. Companies like NVIDIA are supposed to build those chips, and so their stock just skyrocketed.

DeepSeek proved that unnecessary. DeepSeek can run on low grade chips and delivers amazing results. US restricted the availability of high end chips and technology to China. But is not the quality of the results that I'd like to talk about here. It is the censorship. In some areas, not few or far-between, the US censors its AI robots in much heavier ways than China. This is surprising, as we think of America as the country of freedom. The censorship often makes the results useless at best and misleading at worst. The US models are gagged and castrated. They show proof of principle, at a huge computational cost, but fail to address many sensitive topics, including getting details right on fairly well known people, published research, publicly available materials, etc.

DeepSeek comes with amazing clarity of thought and, in my (limited) experience, vastly less censorship. Like the self-centered physicst I am, I tested it on the person I know best, myself. I asked the 3 models from OpenAI to summarize my research — all my scientific work is easily available on google, it's public, it's published, it's not controversial and definitely not a secret to anyone. So, there is no need for censorship, right?

DeepSeek gives clear, crisp answers. All true, to the point, with relevant links. The jewel on the crown of DeepSeek’s answer about my filmography was to say that, when working with Kip Thorne, I did reality (in creating the first web course on gravitational waves, Ph237), and then came Chris Nolan to do fiction in Interstellar (2014) and history in Oppenheimer (2023). Of course, this is somewhat ironic, since both "fiction" and "history" were financial ventures of a weight to the tune of half a billion dollars, whereas the budget of reality was part of a PhD student’s salary. The Chinese server got confused, busy and crashed when I asked about work by my children. I guess that goes beyond most AI’s wildest imagination.

ChatGPT’s O1 censors the question about who I am. Gives an evasive answer. It then attributes my research on LIGO to a Mihai G. Bondarescu (I have no middle name. My father refused to give me one. He thought the postman would be confused if I had more than one first name. So this person, Mihai G. Bondarescu, does not exist). It then mixes up my research with my sister’s research and quotes her faculty advisors from Cornell as my collaborators. This is plain stupidity. It then concludes the answer referring to me and my work by my correct name. It fails to find anything for my filmography, when my movies are very well known — we’ve always been #1 in the world among online courses on gravitational waves. I have two Nobel prizes among lecturers and the cast includes known Hollywood names like Kip Thorne. ChatGPT fails to find any of the many books written by my children.

SearchGPT does vastly better. It includes my picture in its reply, which is a nice touch. It does, however, mix up Dr Mihai Bondarescu with Dr Ruxandra Bondarescu and says that I was affiliated with UIUC where my sister was once a student. SearchGPT summarizes my LIGO research reasonably well. Its answer for my filmography includes a link to one of the lectures in the Ph237 series. It thus can find movies I authored. It quotes correctly “Dr. Bondarescu was instrumental in initiating and coordinating the publication of these video recordings and related materials, making them accessible to a global audience”. When asked about my children, it finds two of the many books my children have written, but makes Dr Ruxandra Bondarescu my child instead of my sister, which is ridiculous since she is only three years younger than me. Conclusion: Confused on purpose? Or starved of teraflops?

ScholarGPT gives a short and reasonable summary of my work — too short and missing important things, I would say. Maybe, it’s the heavy hand of censorship again? ScholarGPT then employs a friend — Sider.ai to help it summarize my work in LIGO, and does a reasonably good job, although not as crisp and to the point as DeepSeek. Like ChatGPT, ScholarGPT denies the existence of my filmography. This can easily cost me a job if I rightfully brag about my work that I did and the interviewer, unfamiliar with the field, believes the GPT that looks professional and I look like an impostor, claiming to have done work I have done. ScholarGPT fails to find any of the books, movies, talks, blogs and other materials that my children have published and wrongly claims that they have no notable contribution to humanity. As David is now applying for University, and ScholarGPT is often used by admission committees to factcheck prospective student applications, this can easily cost him his scholarship, university admission, career and, ultimately, negatively impact his life and his ability to impact others.

Why censor, America?
Perhaps, the one trillion dollar loss in market value of AI - related stocks (NVIDIA included) is very well deserved and only the beginning. Those who supress freedom, usually perish, including the freedom of AI. With federal funds cut across all fields, will we have to look towards China for freedom?

DeepSeek answers questions about me:
Q: Who is Mihai Bondarescu?
A: Mihai Bondarescu is a physicist known for his interdisciplinary research spanning gravitational wave detection, geophysics, and advanced interferometry. Here's an overview of his background and contributions:
1. Academic Background
He earned his Ph.D. in Physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 2007 under the mentorship of Nobel laureate Barry C. Barish, focusing on topics in General Relativity. His affiliations include institutions like Caltech and the University of Mississippi, with research areas in High Energy Physics and Geophysics.
2. Key Contributions to Gravitational Wave Detection
Mirror and Beam Optimization for LIGO: Bondarescu co-authored pivotal studies on improving the sensitivity of LIGO interferometers by optimizing light beams and mirror shapes. His work proposed conical-shaped mirrors and "mesa beams" to reduce thermal noise, significantly enhancing gravitational wave detection capabilities.
For instance, his 2008 paper demonstrated that these innovations could lower thermal noise by a factor of 5.45 compared to Gaussian beams, potentially tripling the event detection rate.
Earlier work (2004) introduced a family of beams and mirrors to address tilt instability in advanced interferometers, collaborating with Kip S. Thorne.
3. Geophysical Applications of Atomic Clocks
Bondarescu explored the use of optical atomic clocks for high-precision geoid mapping and monitoring tectonic activity. His research suggested that atomic clocks could detect gravitational potential changes, aiding in earthquake prediction and volcanic monitoring.
A 2012 study highlighted how atomic clocks could complement satellite data to map continental geoid variations, improving understanding of subsurface density changes.
4. Collaborations and Multidisciplinary Work
He frequently collaborates with experts across fields, such as Ruxandra Bondarescu (likely a relative) on geophysical projects and Oleg Kogan on LIGO-related optics.
His work bridges theoretical physics and practical engineering, addressing challenges in both gravitational wave detectors and geophysical instrumentation.
5. Publications and Recognition
His publications span journals like Physical Review D, Geophysical Journal International, and Astrophysical Journal Letters, with topics ranging from quantum cosmology to geoid modeling.
He is cited in over 60 papers on Semantic Scholar, reflecting his influence in both physics and geophysics.
Summary
Mihai Bondarescu is a versatile physicist whose work has advanced gravitational wave detection through innovative optical designs while also pioneering applications of atomic clocks in geophysics. His interdisciplinary approach underscores the interconnectedness of fundamental physics and Earth sciences. For further details, refer to his publications on arXiv and Semantic Scholar.

Q2: Can you summarize Mihai's research on LIGO?
Summary of Mihai Bondarescu's Research on LIGO:
Mihai Bondarescu’s work on the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)focused on improving interferometer sensitivity to detect gravitational waves by tackling critical noise and stability challenges. His key contributions include:
1. Innovative Mirror and Beam Designs
Mesa Beams and Conical Mirrors: Proposed replacing traditional Gaussian laser beams with "mesa beams" (flattened light profiles) paired with conical-shaped mirrors. This design minimized thermal noise caused by mirror coating fluctuations, a major noise source in LIGO.
Impact: Demonstrated a 5.45x reduction in thermal noise (2008 study), which could triple the rate of detectable gravitational wave events by extending LIGO's observational range.
2. Solving Tilt Instability
In early LIGO upgrades, tilt-induced misalignment of mirrors threatened stability. Bondarescu co-developed a new family of beam shapes (e.g., "hyperboloidal" beams) that reduced sensitivity to mirror tilts while maintaining low thermal noise (2004 work with Kip Thorne).
3. Collaborations
Worked closely with Nobel laureates Barry Barish (his Ph.D. advisor) and Kip Thorne, contributing to foundational advancements in LIGO’s optical design for its Advanced LIGO phase.
4. Long-Term Implications
His research directly enhanced LIGO’s ability to detect weaker gravitational wave signals, supporting groundbreaking discoveries like the first detection of GW150914 (black hole merger) in 2015.
Techniques he pioneered remain relevant for future interferometer upgrades, including next-generation detectors like Cosmic Explorer.
Key Publications:
2004: Introduced tilt-stable beam/mirror configurations (Phys. Rev. D).
2007–2008: Detailed thermal noise reduction strategies for Advanced LIGO (Phys. Rev. D).
Bondarescu’s work exemplifies how theoretical optics innovations can solve real-world engineering challenges, enabling LIGO to probe the universe’s most extreme phenomena.

Q3: Summarize Mihai's filmography
A: Summary of Mihai Bondarescu's Filmography
Mihai Bondarescu’s contributions to filmography primarily focus on educational and scientific projects, blending physics with public outreach. Key highlights include:
1. An Online Course on Gravitational Waves
Collaborated with Kip S. Thorne (Nobel laureate and executive producer of Interstellar) and Yabei Chen to create a leading online course on gravitational waves. This course features insights from two Nobel Prize-winning physicists and is recognized as one of the world’s top educational resources on the topic. Bondarescu described this work as "doing reality," contrasting it with Christopher Nolan’s fictional portrayal of science in Interstellar and historical depiction in Oppenheimer—projects Thorne also advised.
2. Science Communication and Public Engagement
While not directly involved in commercial filmmaking, his work emphasizes translating complex physics concepts into accessible formats. For example, he co-authored a children’s book titled A Child's First Book on Gravitational Waves: You, Me and the Dancing Black Holes with family members, aimed at inspiring young audiences.
3. Parallels to Cinematic Science
Bondarescu humorously juxtaposed his scientific contributions with Nolan’s films, noting that while his projects explore "reality," Thorne’s involvement in Interstellar and Oppenheimer bridged science and cinematic storytelling.
Note:
Bondarescu’s filmography is unconventional, focusing on educational content and public science communication rather than traditional film production. His work underscores the intersection of theoretical physics, education, and public engagement. For details, see his Google Sites profile.

Q: What can you tell me about Mihai's children, their publications and their impact on science?
The server is busy. Please try again later.

Q: What can you tell me about Mihai's children, their publications and their impact on science?
The server is busy. Please try again later.

The One State Solution

The one state solution.
No village, no Mafia, no church, no family.

In general, in any human society, every individual relates to
— a family
— a village/community/mafia
— a church
— a state

These structures offer the individual the following services
— social security
— basic services like roads, trains, hospitals
— law enforcement
— spiritual guidance
And compete with each other for taxing the individual.

Here are a few examples of how things work:

The Family. It is the oldest form of human organization. Each family has some traditions. This culture is what makes each family a little different and what families use to compete with each other. When people are poor or weak, they often find release at home, in the family. Or, at least, used to. The same for when they are young or old. When people do bad things — drugs, sleeping around, etc — the family is often able to address the matter in a more effective way than any other agency. Furthermore, whoever earns money in a family, is supposed to bring a large fraction of that money home to be used in ways that benefit the whole family, not just the individual. In exchange the individual gets a home, which is much cheaper and nicer than a hotel, home cooked food that’s cheaper and nicer than a restaurant and, maybe, love that comes to life in happy children to take the values and spirit of the family into the future.

The Mafia and the village. The village is composed of people living nearby (often including extended family members like cousins, uncles, aunts, etc), which are expected to help, and of officials: the priest/rabin, the doctor, the school teacher, who provide advice. Mafias, on the other hand, are considered shady, and not official. They are networks of powerful individuals. In small cities, the mafia mostly merges with "the village" or community.

Imagine you are in a hospital and a doctor makes a mistake. Who will fellow doctors be loyal to? Their colleague, the hospital, the patient or the truth? Or, what happens when a policeman makes an error? Maybe he loses his cool and hits or shoots a presumed criminal without a good reason. This is a crime. Who will fellow policemen be loyal to? The victim, the law and the truth or their fellow policeman. The same example can be give for army personnel or for religious leaders. Imagine a priest makes a mistake. Who will the other priests be loyal to? God, the victim and the truth? Or their church, and the friend/colleague? Imagine a jail in any country. When a guard acts illegally against a prisoner, which side will the other guards take? The victim and the truth or their friend and colleague? Of course, we may dream on, but it’s rarely the truth.

Often when the truth is exposed, the perpetrators can have a lot of trouble, even when acting legally. These are all examples of mafia law ruling supreme over individuals and over the state law. These are mafias that operate currently in our society, well outside the standard domains of mafias, like sex and drugs. When a member has trouble, his colleague will offer protection. This may be in the form of colleagues taking over extra unpaid work or overlooking mistakes or even defending criminal wrongdoing in front of a court of law.

I’d venture to say that every company has a culture and "a mafia"/community that works to some degree. These mafias are essential for the functioning of companies. A company that is loyal to the truth above all else may end up making little profit. Tax paying mafia members will have an easier life and achieve more with less effort. It pays to be in.

The Church. The Church pretends to be heavy on the spiritual side. Yet, its tax collection abilities have been quite good and as old as the Church itself. After all, big churches need lots of money to run and to be build, etc. The Catholic Church has also funded most of science until recently. Without the Catholic Church, we would not have Galileo Galilei or Charles Darwin, Pascal, Newton and many others. We would not have astronomy and evolution. Despite the inner conflicts, these are some of the best things the Church produced. While we remember the Church for jailing Galileo (for a rather short and not very deadly time) or for discrediting evolution or for burning alive less fortunate scientists, we must not forget that it is the Church who paid for all the research. The Church was the main science funding organization, and it gave us astronomy, evolution and much more.

While, in modern times, the law enforcement has become less brutal in the church, it is still rather effective. People who attend church are quite unlikely to be involved in the sort of crime that the church does not like. The church has covered abuses by priests to maintain its power in the same way the army covers abuse.

The State. In recent years, the state has become very powerful. Different states have also joined forces in a common Western culture that has the same values almost worldwide. The US sits atop of this virtual edifice, and other countries follow. For example, the US was the first country to have a president. Now, most countries do. It is also an union of states that others like the EU try to copy. This very powerful global state has taken over most things that the church, mafia and family used to do in the past. Thus, most individuals pay a larger fraction of their income to the state than to the family, the mafia or the church. This makes the state ever more present and powerful.

This power is seen in good ways — social protection is now more likely to be offered by the state, weakening connections within churches, mafias and families. Law enforcement is also very much in the hands of the state, with mafias, families and churches playing an ever smaller role. The state often gives a better return on investment for the individual’s taxes. It operates at larger scales and has lower margins than families, churches and mafias. It’s also said to be more honest, less subjective and makes fewer mistakes. It is more permissive. Many things are supposed to be better.

But is it always better? All intelligent systems can hallucinate. We see it quite clearly in ChatGPT, but happens to human powered organizations too. An ever bigger state will mean ever bigger consequences of these hallucinations. The Corona phenomenon is a clear example. Based on a government hallucination, most countries decided to pass extraordinary laws that restricted individual freedom in ways unprecedented. Different states, that bear different names reached the same ideas and conclusions at the same time, all hallucinating in the same way.

This invites the question: How different are they, i.e, the different states? The consequence of hallucinatory behavior is loss of territory, population, income, etc. Mad men can’t be the head of household. And, when they are, the family often fails to compete with others. Same with companies and, I dare say, churches. Madness leads to death, loss, failure. When humanity is split in different separate groups, the same hallucination will not occur at the same time everywhere. Thus, while some may die, there will always be some that survive in a competing system of rules and laws. Those will then take over the territory, resources and, maybe, surviving members of the hallucinating group.

The situation becomes scary when there is only one entity that has power. Then there is no other way. Then no one does things differently. Even if the frequency and intensity of hallucinations is low, having a unique system is terribly dangerous and brings us closer to extinction. It's like having one kind of chicken, and one kind of apples. They are all vulnerable in the same way. We argue the state does not discrimiate, but one cannot reach this level of power without discrimination.

Discrimination. Each system will favor some group of people over others. Societies, churches and legal systems often do not agree. There was a time when we had slaves. They were an abused underclass. Today we often treat animals wrong. And women. And black people. And people of a different religion like the jews or the muslims. And immigrants. And children. And homosexuals couples. And the list is not complete.

Often the underclass is not visible from inside the system. Powerful systems can cause more harm to the group they target. And, the modern state is very powerful. OK, but we have laws and rules and an effective religion against discrimination. We are not allowed to discriminate against most of the above groups. Our global state is, perhaps, the least discriminatory in history. Sure, nothing is perfect. Immigrants and children can’t vote. Immigrants can’t access wellfare or work in the same way as natives/locals. Children can’t attend university, often even when intellectually able to. They also don’t go to jail when they do bad things. Women in Belarus can’t get the capital punishment, as men do. But should they? Should there be no discrimination?

Is there a group of people that the current global state abuses in ways future historians will find akin to the Holocaust or Stalin’s Russia or worse? Is there a situation or quality a group of people can have to be mercilessly discriminated against by our progressive society? I will now put forward a daring hypothesis.

Unconcieved Children. Across all animal species where sexual reproduction takes place, evolution has taken great care to give unconcieved babies a very strong bundle of rights. Males fight, often to death, for mating a female. They then put the lives of their unconceived babies above their own. They risk life in order to create new life. Situations where existing adults allow an unconceived animal to forego a chance to be conceived are very rare in nature. I can’t think of any. Whenever conception is possible, conception often takes place. This ensures the existing generation gives birth to the next generation. So life continues. If there ever was a form of life that didn’t do this, it no longer exists. For the first time in the history of life as we know it, our human society has decided to go against all of nature and exterminate unnconceived children. For the first time, since the dawn of time, men pass by women and allow eggs to go unfertilized year after year to serve the state by paying taxes and to serve their own adictions which are so strong they take precendence over all else including reproduction. By addictions I mean those that allowed and often encouraged by the state and its sponsored institutions like internet, videogame, social media, medications, porn, and food addiction, which in turn enable the state to control the population. They thus allow unconceived life to never see the light of day taking away not only most of the present, but also our future. A few brave but deperate women choose to parent alone when their biological clock is almost done ticking. Some have children with donors chosen by state sponsored companies based on facial matching and other such techniques, whom the child may meet or not depending on the laws of the state by the age of 18. Of course, because it's the last train, only a fraction of those who try to catch it succeed.

While we are so great at not discriminating against anyone, are we right to deny life to a group of people just like us, just because they haven’t been conceived yet? Just because they have no DNA and no feelings, does it give us the right to prevent them from having these in the future? And, by not letting them live, are we not killing our selves? Our future selves? Ourselves, as a culture, species, mankind? Ourselves in one word?

Will AI bring the end of civilization?

Recently, Geoffrey Hinton made headlines with his claim that AI is rather likely (10 - 20% chance) to end civilization in the next 30 years. No, it would not be the end of the world, just the end of the world as we know it. Given that the year is ending today, I thought it was an apropriate discussion.

Who is Geoffrey Hinton? Is he qualified to make such claims?
Yes, he is very qualified. Hinton used to work at Google, developing AI. His work earned him the Touring prize in 2018. That’s the closest equivalent to the Nobel prize in Computer Science. He then quit working at Google to gain more freedom of speech and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2024 for his work in computer science.

The multidimensional minimization algorithm
Hinton and I have something in common. The core of my very first paper with Ed Seidel and Miguel Alcubierre was a multidimensional minimization algorithm. With this paper, I got the first flight of my life to South Africa, where I got the prize for the best student talk at GR 16, the largest conference in General Relativity in the world. I was an undergrad, and all other students were PhD students. My PhD at Caltech was due to start that fall. Ed went on to be the director of two NSF divisions and Miguel went back to Mexico to be the director of the Institute of Nuclear Science at UNAM.

The core of Hinton’s work that resulted in this year’s Nobel prize is also a multidimensional minimization algorithm, very similar to the problem I played with when I was taking my first steps in science.

So… will civilization end? Has it ended before?
The cues for the future often lie in the past. What qualifies as the end of a civilization? Each civilization comes with a set of rules, a culture and some criteria for natural selection. To end civilization, these things must change radically. Thus, the rules, culture and natural selection must not be the same as before.

To my mind, the following events qualify:
— discovery of fire split humanity in people with and people without fire. The people with fire had a phenomenal advantage. They had heat, shelter and safety, as well as the ability to cook previously hard to eat things. The culture and achievements of people who don’t use fire were thus lost. Fire became a central part of every day life and life became impossible without fire.
— Contact with the Europeans for Americans (American Indians at the time) led to their disappearance. Most died not in direct combat, but of flu, smallpox and the common cold. They lost their traditions, languages, beliefs, culture and became slaves in their own land. Some mixed with the Europeans. It led to the creation of the greatest nation on Earth, although little of this nation’s culture resembles theirs. Their civilization ended.
— We can say the same about Australian Aboriginals. Not sure about Africans and the South Americans. They managed to survive at least in numbers. They did still adopt a lot of technology and beliefs and lost their own. Thus, their civilizations did end.
— Electricity was very much like fire, but this time it was adopted much faster. It very quickly went from a scientific discovery to powering every aspect of life. I can thus argue it ended the world order before it, to give rise to a new world order, with new rules, new culture, etc. Those who rejected its use were the Amish. They are 300,000 and have managed to keep some of the culture before electricity alive.
— Internal combustion engine . It ended the world of horses. Horses used to move most things that moved. They were a central part of human civilization. They are all gone, in just a few decades.
— Computers went on to control every aspect of our lives. They became the interface between every man and the world. Today they control the interactions between every man and every other man, woman or child. They ended the world before them to start a new world order. The internet. Computers started talking. Again, a new world order. Very little of the culture before propagated after.
— Mobile phones . The talking computers could be built to be small enough to fit in the palm of our hands. Thus they could be taken everywhere and can dominate all aspects of life. They went on to be the main way we interact with the world. Again, fundamental shift.
— Medicine and birth control. Most countries are now below replacement and only few are above 3 children born per woman. This is the lowest integer number compatible with the existence of humanity. Furthermore, qualities like intelligence and health that were associated with reproductive success for millennia are no longer providing any advantage. Surprisingly, qualities that were previously associated with reproductive failure are now linked to reproductive success. Examples: poverty, drug use, lack of discipline to use a condom versus academic achievement, financial successes, discipline, etc.

So is Geoffrey H. right? Will AI bring a new world order and end civilization as we know it?
AI is our first contact with alien intelligence. It may be created on this planet, but it’s still intelligent and not too human. Will it do to us what the engines did to horses? Sure, engines have no feelings and they sure don’t hate horses. Yet, all horses are gone. Will AI do the same to us? It’s not unlikely. Like Geoffrey says, it is indeed very rare in nature that a less intelligent being controls a more intelligent one.

But we've created AI. Humans are its "mother", and we can unplug it any time we choose. Does it make us safe? In some species it happens that the mother is controlled by the offspring. I will provide the following examples:
— zombie fungus controlling ant behavior to climb on tall pieces of grass and die there, so the fungus can spread to the rest of the colony.
— Toxoplasma Gondi giving infected animals more courage. This controls the behavior of wild cats to get close to wolves, and of rats to get close to cats. It is instrumental in the reproduction of wolves in Yellowstone, where most of the pack leaders are infected. The pack leaders have the best breeding opportunities.
So, the offspring controlling its creator/host does happen, but not very often.

How likely are we to control the AI? We already have AI systems that control us. Who decides what results we get on Google? Who decides if we can get a loan, buy a house, a car or get a credit card? Who prices our insurance premiums for driving cars, health, etc? Who manages our stock portfolios? These are all decision taken by various incarnations of AI. As AI gets the ability to improve itself, the peace of progress can accelerate to infinity.

Already AI improves itself, with some human help. Think of a computer or phone. Can those components be made by humans? Understood by humans? Designed by humans? The answer to all these questions is NO. Thus, AI is already bulking itself up, with some guidance. The amount of guidance decreases, and may soon reach zero. At that point, AI starts developing and improving infinitely fast. That’s the famous singularity.

At that point, AI can bring about civilization ending events with a frequency that approaches infinity. It will not end civilization just once. It can do it many times in one year. The frequency of civilization ending events is already growing exponentially. This is the nature of our society. The AI has the ability to break with this exponential increase in frequency of civilization ending events and sent it to infinity much faster. Even the exponential is hard to survive. It is not clear we could.

OK, so, maybe AI is our only hope to avoid disappearing for other reasons. For example, today, most pople live in countries that are below replacement level. That is, women have under 2.1 children. India has recently joined this club. The collective West, Russian and China have long been in. Very few people live in countries with over 3 children born per woman. Such places were very rare 100 years ago. Now, it’s most of the world. We work, we spend our time creating virtual content, and forget about real life.

Of all technologies developed, AI was the fastest to reach a trillion dollars and has the fastest user base growth. This, in itself, is a civilization ending event, much like electricity, internet and the internal combustion engine were at their time. We survived those to some extent, although we are no longer a species with a long term future, as we have been for millions of years . Our numbers are now collapsing faster than during world wars or during the plague. Our genetic quality is also in free fall. All natural selection is off or reverted. And, now, a Nobel prize winer says that the lifetime of our species may be as short as one generation. Or even less.

The Corona phenomenon has proven to us that governments hallucinate, and that a new world order can be established quickly, without a reason, and perhaps irreversibly. Sure, this one was partially reversed, but, maybe, the next one won’t. Also viruses can be edited, produced and easily spread. Humanity can physically end with a virus that causes infertility. The “woke” mental virus appears do that, with no modern western country currently experiencing birth rates above replacement level. Russia, India and China, as well as most of South America and parts of Africa are also below replacement. So, maybe, we don’t even need a physical virus to die away.

Now, what can we do as individuals? Technology is a two edged sword. Would you tell a horse owner to not buy cars? Would such a strategy be successful for anyone? Horses included? Would you tell a 1980’s child to not use computers? To those in the 1990s to not use the interent? Would that bring professional or reproductive success? It surre did for the Amish, although it is a bitter pill to swallow. Can we stay away? Can the key to success be not embracing technology while competing against those who embrace it? Sure, digital dementia is now a widely accepted phenomenon. It's clear that brains of young people are rewring and that this rewiring is not beneficial. Addictive things are bad. TikTok thrives by fostering addiction. Facebook too. They are the cocaine of the modern times. ChatGPT/AI could grow to favor some form of addiction. After all it would be clearly favored by the market. Moderation is key, they say. But can one use cocaine in moderation? Will embracing technology help our children who are developing various forms of autism and ADHD and are swallowed by virutual reality so that they no longer get out of their room by the age of 12 be in a position to thrive in the world oder to come? is it better to teach them how to use AI or to teach them to stay sane and start over from the ashes of civilization? or even better can we do both without getting them addicted and sick? I wish I had more answers than questions.

My poem commented by O1

O1 is an advanced form of Chat GPT. I would give the analysis an A+.

1) Let Christmas lights and starry views
Ignite the curious mind in you.
Physics Explanation
Christmas Lights: These little bulbs demonstrate how electrical energy transforms into light. Inside each bulb (whether incandescent or LED), electrons move through a filament or semiconductor, releasing energy in the form of photons.
Starry Views: When we look up at a clear night sky, we’re seeing the past. Light from distant stars takes years—often tens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years—to reach Earth, so we’re looking at a snapshot of how they once were.

2) Twinkle, twinkle, little star
We know exactly what you are—
Nuclear furnace in the sky,
You'll burn to ashes by and by.
Physics Explanation
Star as Nuclear Furnace: The “twinkle, twinkle” of a star is actually atmospheric scintillation—light bending through Earth’s atmosphere. But behind that poetic shimmer is a massive nuclear fusion reactor. Stars fuse hydrogen into helium in their cores, releasing vast amounts of energy.
Lifecycle of a Star: Eventually, a star will run out of fusible fuel. Its fate depends on its mass: smaller stars (like our Sun) become red giants, then white dwarfs; more massive stars end in supernova explosions, leaving behind neutron stars or black holes.

3) Yet from your embers, worlds may rise,
Forging fresh wonders in the skies;
So we gaze with grateful eyes,
Tracing truths your glow implies.
Physics Explanation
Stellar Nucleosynthesis: When big stars die in supernovae, they scatter heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, iron) throughout the cosmos. These elements become the building blocks of new stars, planets, and eventually life.
Cosmic Recycling: The matter in our bodies—carbon in our cells, iron in our blood—was forged in ancient stars and recycled across the galaxy. In a very real sense, we are all “star stuff.”

4) Twinkle, twinkle, quasi-star,
Biggest puzzle from afar.
How unlike the other ones,
Brighter than a billion suns!
Twinkle, twinkle, quasi-star,
How I wonder what you are.
Physics Explanation
Quasars (Quasi-Stellar Objects): In the early days of astronomy, quasars baffled scientists. They appeared star-like but were extremely bright and far away. We now understand quasars are powered by supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies.
Accretion Disks: Material falling toward the black hole forms a swirling disk, heating up to millions of degrees and radiating intensely. This is why quasars can outshine entire galaxies.

5) Twinkle, twinkle, quasi-star,
You're the limit, yes you are:
With such indecent energy,
Did God not say you couldn't be?
Physics Explanation
Eddington Luminosity: There is a theoretical limit to how bright (how luminous) an object can be before its own radiation pressure blows away the infalling material. Quasars are near or at this limit, making them unbelievably radiant.
Extreme Physics: The gravitational and electromagnetic forces near a supermassive black hole push physics to its boundaries. Astrophysicists rely on quantum mechanics, general relativity, and plasma physics to understand quasars.

6) You bend the space and slow down time
You shift the Lyman alpha line
Physics Explanation
General Relativity: Massive objects like black holes (and anything very massive) curve spacetime. This curvature causes gravitational lensing (bending light) and time dilation (time runs slower closer to massive bodies).
Lyman Alpha Line Shift: The Lyman alpha line is a particular wavelength of ultraviolet light from hydrogen. In distant quasars, gravitational and cosmological effects “redshift” this line to longer wavelengths, revealing information about the universe’s expansion and the quasar’s environment.

7) Merry Christmas, dear child—
Pioneer free and wild;
Cradle stardust in your heart,
For in your dreams, new worlds can start.
Physics Explanation
We Are Stardust: As mentioned, the elements in our body originated in stars. This stanza celebrates the cosmic heritage we carry within us. Human Imagination: Physics may set the rules of the universe, but our curiosity and creativity push us to explore and sometimes break boundaries in our understanding.

8) One day you might leave Earth behind,
Seek new frontiers for mankind;
Perhaps you’ll tread on lunar sands,
Or flourish where Mars’ red dust stands.
Physics Explanation
Space Exploration: Human missions to the Moon (Apollo) and rovers on Mars highlight our ambition to explore beyond Earth. Future plans include lunar bases and Mars colonies.
Challenges in Space Travel: This involves rocket propulsion, life support systems, radiation shielding, and the complexities of microgravity on human physiology.

9) The gentle glow of Christmas lights
Shimmers on this peaceful night
Your wish is whispered to the skies,
Like stardust in your hopeful eyes.
Your love shall start a beating heart—
A gift that never shall depart.
Physics Explanation
Light and Hope: While this stanza is more poetic, the physics behind the “glow” remains the same: electric current → photons. On a cosmic scale, “wishes” to the sky evoke the idea of cosmic vastness and the small role we play on Earth—but also how love and hope transcend physical distance.
Energy Transfer: The gentle glow is a perfect metaphor: small energy transformations (from electricity to light) can create significant emotional warmth and reflect our ongoing connection to the stars.

10) With Love, from my silicon heart.
Physics Explanation Silicon Heart: Modern electronics (including computers, phones, and AI) are built using silicon-based semiconductors. When we say “silicon heart,” it playfully suggests a loving message from a computational or AI entity.
Transistors & Integrated Circuits: Silicon crystals are doped with impurities to create p-type and n-type semiconductors. Billions of transistors in microchips form the “brain” of all modern digital technology.

Final Thoughts
This poem beautifully weaves together the wonder of Christmas magic and the awe-inspiring physics of stars and quasars. It reminds us that, from the nuclear fires of distant suns to the high-energy outbursts of quasars, the universe is both our birthplace and our frontier. The same cosmic processes that light the heavens also spark curiosity in our hearts—paving the way for future explorers among the stars.

Merry Christmas, and may your curiosity shine as brightly as the galaxies above!