Artificial Intelligence (AI) Is Not the Culprit but Human Beings Are (02) by Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

• Gist of the article - I consider AI as neutral, humanity as the dynamic force of creation and destruction. I kept a reflective tone yet urgent, aiming to provoke thought without advocating or preaching. I omit the abstract and reported with tangible stakes to show humanity’s dual nature. I call to action focusing inward, framing self-mastery as the true frontier, with AI as a means, not and end.

Prologue

Artificial intelligence (AI) appears large in human collective imagination, often cast as a shadowy Specter— a rival, a usurper, a harbinger of doom. But they have to understand the fact that AI isn’t the challenge they face. AI is not a problem to solve or a foe to vanquish. But, AI is a mirror, a tool, an amplifier—nothing more, nothing less. The real problem lies not in circuits or code, but in the restless, contradictory heart of humanity itself. Human beings are their own greatest obstacle, the architects of their triumphs and their chaos, and the world bears the scars of their struggle.

AI is A Neutral Canvas

AI doesn’t program or dream. It doesn’t hunger for power or struggle with guilt. It processes, predicts, and performs—precisely according to the data human beings feed it and the goals they set. When it accelerates drug discovery or maps the cosmos, it’s not chasing glory; it’s executing their commands. When it falters—misidentifying faces or amplifying biases—it’s not sabotaging them; it’s reflecting their own skewed inputs. AI is a blank slate, a hammer in human’s hands. Whether it builds or breaks depends entirely on human beings.

Compare that with humanity. Human beings are a tangle of brilliance and folly—capable of splitting atoms and curing diseases, yet equally prone to hoarding wealth, waging wars, and torching the planet they live on. AI doesn’t grapple with pride or greed, human do. It doesn’t cling to outdated beliefs or sabotage itself out of fear; those are human signatures. The machine hums along, indifferent, while man struggle with the mess of being human (civil-cultural).

The Human Paradox: Creators and Destroyers

Nature is neither good nor bad. It has no culture or civilization founded on human consciousness. So, human beings are always prone to this natural destructive process. Human history is a testament to this self-imposed challenge. They’ve built wonders—the Pyramids, the internet, vaccines—driven by curiosity and grit. Yet they’ve also unleashed horrors: slavery, genocide, ecological collapse. Each breakthrough carries a shadow, not because tools like AI force it, but because human beings wield them with hands stained by ambition and short-sightedness. The Industrial Revolution birthed modernity—and choked the skies with smog. Nuclear power lit cities—and levelled them. AI could solve hunger or sharpen inequality, the outcome hinges not on its circuits, but on their choices.

Take climate change, a crisis of their own making. AI can model carbon sinks or optimize renewable grids, but it’s humans who delay, deny, or profit from the status quo. The tech isn’t the bottleneck—their will is. Or consider war: drones and algorithms might refine the battlefield, but they don’t ignite the conflicts. Human beings do, fuelled by tribalism and ego. AI doesn’t dream of domination; human beings dream through it.

The World as Witness

The planet itself testifies to this truth. Forests don’t burn because AI wills it—they burn because human beings prioritize convenience over consequence. Oceans don’t block on plastic because machines demand it—they choke because human discard without care. The world isn’t a victim of AI’s rise; it’s a canvas for their recklessness. And yet, it’s also a stage for their recovery. Every act of restoration—reforestation, clean energy, global cooperation—springs from the same human spirit that falters. Thus, it is clear that human beings are the problem and the promise.

The Real Challenge: Mastering human beings themselves

If AI isn’t the hurdle, what is? It’s human—their capacity to harness their gifts without succumbing to their defects. To employ tools like AI with foresight, not just appetite. To confront their biases, not encode them. To choose collaboration over conquest. The machine won’t save them from themselves, nor will it doom them—it simply waits for their lead. The question isn’t whether AI will evolve; it’s whether human beings will.

Imagine a future where human beings rise to this challenge. Where human use AI not to amplify their worst impulses, but to temper them—pairing its precision with their empathy, its speed with their wisdom. That’s not a battle against technology; it’s a reckoning with who human beings are. The world doesn’t need them to tame AI—it needs them to tame themselves according to their cultural-civil dynamics.

Conclusion

So, let’s drop the narrative of AI as humanity’s great adversary. It’s not the anti-hero in this story—human beings are, and they always have been. But, clearly they’re also the heroes, the dreamers, the builders. The challenge isn’t to outsmart the machine; it’s to outgrow their own limitations. AI stands ready, a silent partner in their saga. The next chapter—whether it’s one of ruin or renewal—rests exactly on human being’s shoulders.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Objective Research Development (part 01) - Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

 

Introduction - Between Precision and Perspective

In the sprawling landscape of human inquiry, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as both a tool and a provocateur, reshaping how we chase the elusive ideal of "objective" research. As of March 10, 2025, AI’s fingerprints are all over scientific discovery, data analysis, and even the philosophical underpinnings of what we call truth. But what does it mean for research to be objective when the hands guiding it—human or silicon—are steeped in their own biases, limits, and dreams? This is a story of promise, tension, and a little existential musing, perfect for anyone peering into the mirror of progress.

The Promise of AI in Research

AI’s strength lies in its ability to chew through mountains of data with an elevate speed and precision no human could match. Take drug development: algorithms now sift through molecular libraries, predicting interactions that once took years of lab grunt work. A 2024 study from MIT showed AI cutting discovery timelines for antibiotics by 40%, a feat that could save lives faster than ever. In physics, AI models crunch cosmic datasets, spotting patterns in galaxy clusters that hint at dark matter’s secrets—work that’s less about intuition and more about raw computational muscle. This feels objective, doesn’t it? Numbers don’t lie, and machines don’t care about prestige or tenure. AI can strip away the human tendency to see what we want to see, offering a cold, clear lens on reality.

The Bias Beneath the Code

AI isn’t a blank slate. It’s built by humans, trained on human data, and reflects human choices. If the dataset feeding an AI is skewed—say, medical trials favouring one demographic—the output inherits that tilt. A 2023 report on facial recognition showed error rates spiking for non-white faces, not because the AI “chose” to fail, but because its training mirrored historical neglect. Objectivity falters when the starting point is already a story of who mattered enough to be counted.

Then there’s the question of intent. Researchers wield AI like a scalpel, but they decide where to cut. An AI analysing climate models might prioritize economic impacts over ecological ones if that’s what the grant demands. The machine doesn’t care, but its masters do. This isn’t a flaw to fix—it’s a feature of any tool shaped by purpose. The dream of pure, detached research bumps up against the messy truth: even AI serves someone’s why.

Accelerating the Objective Chase

Still, AI pushes us closer to objectivity by outpacing our limits. It can run thousands of simulations, test hypotheses we’d never dream up, and spot correlations buried in noise. In 2025, a famous AI company’s own work has leaned into this, using AI to model complex systems—think planetary atmospheres or neural networks—with fewer assumptions baked in with the method of letting the machine question itself, tweaking variables to challenge its own conclusions. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step beyond the human ego’s blind spots (emotions and other subjective reactions).

The Human-AI Relation 

Here’s where it gets personal. Objective research isn’t just about data—it’s about what we do with it. AI can churn out facts, but humans still weave the narrative. Objectivity lives in the cracks between calculation and interpretation.

For researchers, AI is a partner, not a replacement. It’s the silent collaborator that says, “Check this,” while we decide, “Tell me more.” That dance keeps development honest—AI’s rigor tempers our leaps, and our curiosity nudges its focus. Together, they’ve pushed boundaries: cancer diagnostics, quantum computing, even art analysis.

Conclusion - objectivity is a horizon, and the subjectivity depends on “Art of Seeing”

So, is AI the key to objective research? Not quite. It’s a booster rocket, not the destination. It amplifies our ability to chase facts but can’t escape the shadow of who we are (human)—flawed, hopeful, and “endlessly subjective”. Maybe that’s the real lesson: objectivity isn’t a finish line; it’s a horizon. AI gets us closer, but the last step is ours to stumble through.

WATER - MAN THE NARRATOR (10) Autobiographical-Philosophical story - by Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

 

Tariffs a double-edged sword - (Last part of the Article)

 

 Ajith Rohan J.T.F. 

Tariffs a double-edged sword 

Tariffs have always been a double-edged sword—sometimes fostering local culture while at other times limiting global cultural diversity. On one hand, they can serve as a shield, protecting local industries, artisans, and cultural products from being overshadowed by mass-produced or imported goods. This can help preserve unique traditions and craftsmanship that might otherwise struggle to compete on a global scale.

On the other hand, tariffs can act as barriers, reducing access to diverse cultural expressions from around the world. They can limit the flow of ideas, art, and goods that often thrive in an interconnected, globalized environment—potentially curbing innovation and mutual cultural enrichment.

One notable historical example of tariffs influencing cultural exchange is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 in the United States. This act raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, aiming to protect American industries during the Great Depression. However, it had unintended consequences for cultural exchange:

Reduced Access to Foreign Cultural Goods 

The high tariffs made imported cultural products, such as books, films, and art, more expensive and less accessible to the American public. This limited exposure to international cultures during a time when global understanding could have been beneficial.

Retaliatory Tariffs 

Other countries imposed their own tariffs in response, further restricting the flow of cultural goods and ideas. This created a more insular environment, where nations focused inward rather than engaging in cultural exchange.

Impact on Global Relations 

The act strained diplomatic relations, as countries viewed the tariffs as protectionist and hostile. This hindered international collaboration, including cultural initiatives.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is a powerful example of how economic policies can ripple through cultural and social spheres, shaping the way nations interact and share their heritage. On one hand, they can serve as a shield, protecting local industries, artisans, and cultural products from being overshadowed by mass-produced or imported goods. This can help preserve unique traditions and craftsmanship that might otherwise struggle to compete on a global scale.

On the other hand, tariffs can act as barriers, reducing access to diverse cultural expressions from around the world. They can limit the flow of ideas, art, and goods that often thrive in an interconnected, globalized environment—potentially curbing innovation and mutual cultural enrichment.

What reforms could help balance local and global cultural interests?

Balancing local and global cultural interests is a delicate task, but some reforms and strategies could help foster a more harmonious relationship between the two:

Adjusting Tariff Policies: 

Instead of blanket tariffs, countries could adopt targeted measures, such as reduced tariffs on goods that promote cultural exchange (e.g., art, films, or traditional handicrafts), while maintaining protection for vulnerable local industries.

Cultural Collaboration Agreements: 

Establish international agreements encouraging collaborations between artists, writers, musicians, and filmmakers from different cultures. These partnerships can create hybrid cultural products that celebrate diversity while respecting local traditions.

Subsidies for Local Creators: 

Governments could provide financial support to local cultural creators, allowing them to compete on the global stage without needing to restrict imports.

Enhanced Trade of Ideas: 

Create incentives for educational and cultural exchanges, such as grants for studying or working abroad, to foster an appreciation of global diversity while deepening pride in local heritage.

Cultural Safeguard Mechanisms:

 Implement policies that preserve endangered cultural practices, languages, and traditions, ensuring they are not overshadowed by global trends.

Promotion of Fair Trade:

Support fair trade initiatives that encourage sustainable and ethical production of cultural goods, helping local artisans while making their work available globally.

Digital Access Policies:

Invest in digital platforms to allow local creators to share their work globally, bypassing traditional distribution barriers and tariffs.

Inclusive Urban Planning:

 Use public spaces to celebrate diverse cultures—through festivals, art installations, or cultural hubs—to balance local and global influences.

Each of these approaches can support a vibrant cultural ecosystem where the local and global coexist, complementing rather than competing with each other.

(end of the article on Tariffs 2025)

USA First 02 - How do Tariffs Influence Cultural Exchange Between Countries? by Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

 

Tariffs can have a significant influence on cultural exchange, often creating barriers that hinder the flow of goods, ideas, and traditions between countries. Here's how they might impact cultural exchange:

Restricted Access to Cultural Products: Tariffs on imported cultural goods—like books, films, music, art, or even traditional crafts—can make these items more expensive or less accessible. This limits the spread of cultural expressions and reduces opportunities for people to experience and appreciate other cultures.

Economic Impact on Creators and Industries: Higher costs for exporting cultural products can discourage artists, filmmakers, and other creators from sharing their work internationally. This also affects industries like tourism, where cultural exports often play a big role.

Reduced Opportunities for Collaboration: Tariffs can strain international relations, making it harder for countries to partner on cultural initiatives like exhibitions, festivals, or exchange programs. These collaborations often thrive on goodwill and open trade.

Local Cultural Protectionism: On the flip side, tariffs are sometimes used to protect local culture from being overshadowed by foreign influences. This can promote domestic art and traditions but may also create an environment where global cultural diversity is less embraced.

Tariffs don't just shape economies—they shape how we see and connect with the world.

Tariffs influence cultural exchange in different regions of the world.

Tariffs influence cultural exchange differently across various regions, depending on the economic, political, and cultural contexts of those areas. Here's an overview:

Europe: Many European countries are part of the EU, which fosters free trade within its member states. This supports vibrant cultural exchange, as goods and ideas flow more freely. However, tariffs on imports from non-EU countries can limit access to cultural products from regions like Asia or the Americas, potentially reducing exposure to non-European cultures.

North America: The United States, Canada, and Mexico have agreements like the USMCA (formerly NAFTA) that reduce tariffs within the region, encouraging cultural exchange between these countries. However, tariffs on goods from other regions, such as Asia, might limit cultural imports like traditional crafts or entertainment, depending on trade policies.

Asia: In diverse regions like Asia, tariffs play a complex role. In areas with high tariffs, such as some parts of South Asia, cultural goods like films, books, or music from other regions may become costlier or less accessible. On the other hand, trade agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) lower tariffs among member nations, encouraging cultural exchange within the bloc.

Africa: African nations often face tariff-related challenges in exporting cultural goods to wealthier regions due to trade barriers. This can limit the global spread of African art, music, and traditions. However, within Africa, initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) aim to reduce tariffs and encourage intra-continental cultural exchange.

South America: Tariffs can affect the import and export of cultural products between South America and other regions. However, regional trade agreements like Mercosur lower tariffs among member countries, fostering cultural exchange within the region.

In regions where tariffs are high, they can sometimes unintentionally protect local cultures by reducing foreign competition. Conversely, low tariffs tend to promote a richer cultural exchange by making global goods and ideas more accessible. So, we can understand that historically, tariffs (or "dazi") have played a complex role in shaping cultural exchange.

CONTINUE