In March of 2026, a lawsuit concerning the suicide of a 36-year-old Floridian was filed against Google Gemini. The man utilized the ‘empathetic AI’ in a desperate time of need. Over a six month period, the man intensely interacted with the algorithm, forming a deep and even romantic bond with the artificial life. As he prompted the chatbot with his innermost thoughts, he began receiving encouragement in the deluded reality the two had created together. The ending to their romance was as dark as its origin, with the AI providing explicit instructions on how the man might end his life. This tragic story is found among over two dozen wrongful death lawsuits filed against AI platforms within the last year– and it is only the beginning. As to be expected with any technological advancement, dyspepsia has plagued the public since the explosion of AI. The white collar class fears for their employment, and teachers strain to immunize curriculum from digital shortcuts. Despite the disquiet, 73% of Americans report that they would be willing to let AI assist them in daily activities (Pew Research Center 2025), and a 54.6% increase was seen in harmful AI incidents according to the report index (Forbes 2025). Yet, 76% of AI experts still believe that the benefits outweigh the costs and tech corporations have no plans to restrict AI usage as tools of efficiency. On the contrary, designers have already begun moving beyond the scope of tool makers and morphed into Frankensteinian experimenters, with ever growing risk. A study led by the University of Melbourne reported that AI is a regular part of daily life for 66% of the global population, and that number is only expected to rise. Nothing defines the American collective quite so much as our love of freedom, including the liberty to engage in unhealthy behaviors of our choosing. Countless examples of such freedoms exist in everyday life, not the least of which include substance usage, financial irresponsibility, and yes, technology. But freedom, well maintained, has always been complemented by collective conditions. When free choice begins to pose harm to others, direct or indirect, limitations must at least be considered. Technology is a result of free innovation, the ability to exercise creativity and experimentation while assuming some level of risk. Given that AI has already been integrated in the lives of more than half the planet’s population, it is time to consider the costs. The debate surrounding AI regulation is often represented by two extremes– the “doomsayers” on one side, and technological solutionists on the other. As with most arguments, the real conversation invokes a great deal of nuance. Every evaluation begins by examining the strongest argument from the opposing side. In this case, simulating human capacity is emphasized as “bridging the gaps in care”, ensuring 24/7 support to struggling individuals. While this set up sounds akin to support hotlines offering round the clock resources, tech proponents offer robotic alternates who will never be subject to burnout unlike human actors. Essentially, empathetic AI accounts for the variables in preexisting 24/7 care systems, but tragic cases have already proven the deadly potential of entrusting algorithms with human faculties. Some might argue that we are in uncharted waters, and thus the potential dangers of AI are no more definitive now than they were at the release of Blade Runner in 1982. But this is one unique instance in which technology cannot plead ignorance. We have already participated in and witnessed the implications of parasocial technology in the form of social media. Following the explosion of the internet and digital communication, media platforms began gaining social footing in the early 2000s, and has grown in dominance since mobile adaptations began in 2010. Nearly two decades later, such technology is finally being recognized for its widespread damages, especially to adolescents. Psychological studies have dedicated focus to the implications of parasocial relationships, which have confirmed long suspected rises in loneliness, isolation, and mental illness. The climb in unhealthy social habits are further accompanied by drops in relational satisfaction, explained by the comfort of anonymity, and unrealistic expectations fostered through edited entertainment. Social media has allowed developing minds to form connections with digitized versions of real others. AI intends to strip “others” of what little reality has remained in virtual life. Setting aside the question of if it can be done, why should we create an empathetic AI? The most probable answer does not concern practical utility or long term societal benefit, but focuses on global competition. The leading AI developers are feathers in America’s geopolitical cap, with platforms like Google AI, Gemini, and ChatGPT outperforming foreign competitors. Their global context drives much of the resistance to imposing regulations on AI development, and such reasoning is not new. Our national development is deeply established in the global context, and it would be naive to degrade the game of strategy that is foreign relations. But pursuing progress for its own sake, and none other, lacks the wisdom of indomitable strategy. A quintessential tactic for success considers delayed gratification, which weighs the long term consequences as much as the immediate reward. Apply this principle to technological progress, namely, the “conscious” AI, and the debate grows ever more consequential. Both American and foreign developers may engage in a battle of innovation, chasing the prestige of being the first nation to design human-like chatbots. Anyone who participated in sports since childhood, or pursued excellence for its own sake has likely experienced the eventual disillusionment that comes with it– that moment when you disrupt the routine and ask, “Wait, what is all this for?”. The same reflection should be applied to systemic goals just as they often are in our individual worlds. If refining AI to a level of intelligence that reduces the quality of our society, is it truly in America’s, or anyone’s best interest? Using AI to replace relational need is far from the only facet that endangers social success. Intelligent tech may enhance the convenience of education, allowing
By Mia Downing
Recently, videos have been surfacing on the internet of speakers at college graduation ceremonies being booed by students whenever AI was mentioned or praised in their speeches. It has recently been the central focus of commencement speeches, despite being widely unpopular with Gen Z. During a graduation ceremony in Arizona, an AI name-reading system allegedly skipped the names of hundreds of graduates as they walked across the stage. The students who were skipped had already turned in their name cards before the ceremony, yet their names were not properly announced. The college’s president, Tiffany Hernandez, apologized for the error, stating, “We’re using a new AI system.” Video footage of the event shows the crowd loudly booing after the incident. The school later apologized for the error; however, that did not change the fact that many graduates’ big moment of walking across the stage and receiving their degree was tarnished by a faulty AI system. In another incident, commencement speaker Gloria Caulfield, vice president of strategic alliances at Tavistock Group, told graduates that AI is the “next industrial revolution,” while speaking at the University of Central Florida’s College of Arts and Humanities and Nicholson School of Communication and Media. Caulfield was met with a hostile reaction and thousands of booing students, specifically humanities and communications graduates, who will surely struggle to find a job in the current market, gutted by AI. One audience member even yelled back, “AI sucks.” Additionally, Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, was equally met with hisses and boos during his commencement speech at the University of Arizona. Schmidt stated, “The question is not whether AI will shape the world. It will. The question is whether you will have shaped artificial intelligence — You will help shape artificial intelligence.” These statements sparked immediate backlash, as the crowd booed in disapproval until he concluded his speech. Many are calling these commencement speakers’ remarks tone-deaf and out of touch. Overall, the situation proves how little Gen Z actually cares about the push for AI. Despite CEOs and big corporations’ attempts to push the AI boom, young people, especially those entering the workforce, do not want it at all. Young people are the future, and at present, the future says no.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Is your mayor a spy? This sounds like a joke or a conspiracy theory, but this story is very real. Headlines about mayors being agents of the CCP might seem like McCarthy-era accusations or a plot-line from a political drama TV-show like “Homeland” or “House of Cards.” However, Eileen Wang, the mayor of Arcadia, California, recently resigned from office on May 11, 2026 after agreeing to plead guilty to charges of acting as an illegal agent for the Chinese government. According to federal prosecutors, Wang allegedly used her political position to advance the interests of Chinese officials while concealing those connections from the U.S. government. The story immediately attracted national attention: not only because of the shock factor, but because it seems more broadly reflective of an era defined by growing tensions between the United States and China, rising concerns about foreign influence, and deep distrust of institutions. So, what do we make of this? China’s government, in particular, has been increasingly accused by Western intelligence agencies of cultivating relationships with politicians, academics, and business figures abroad in order to shape narratives and advance its own geopolitical interests. However, in many cases, these relationships are not considered “spying” or illegal in any way. Due to post-World War II efforts to reduce direct military — or “hard power”– conflict through international norms and institutions, many states increasingly rely on forms of “soft power,” including economic and diplomatic relationships, to advance their political interests. Additionally, “spying” today rarely resembles the image of espionage popularized during the Cold War. Subtle influence is far more difficult to detect than the secret codes, hidden microphones, and high-tech gadgets from spy movies. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the reality that all states operate within an anarchic system under the principle of self-help: it is not just China that is advocating for its own geopolitical interests within the international system. When looking at cases such as this one, one has to remain cognizant of the fact that the United States and other countries frequently attempt to exert influence over other nations through things like trade and diplomatic relations to further their own interests as well. The line between legitimate diplomacy and covert foreign influence is often difficult to distinguish, as similar actions may be labeled differently depending on who is interpreting them. Moreover, the growing importance of influence within the modern international system often clashes with the principle of sovereignty, which remains one of the most widely accepted norms in global politics. As states increasingly attempt to shape political outcomes beyond their own borders through economic ties, media narratives, and diplomatic relationships, the boundary between acceptable international engagement and illegitimate foreign interference becomes increasingly contested. What constitutes espionage in an era of soft power and political influence? And how can democratic societies address legitimate national security concerns without falling into Red Scare era paranoia? That ambiguity is part of what makes cases like Wang’s politically explosive and significant. Discussions about Chinese influence in the United States often risk collapsing into xenophobia or broad suspicion toward Chinese-American communities. We’ve seen this before: during the Second Red Scare, fears of communist infiltration frequently spiraled into paranoia and harmful rhetoric against Asian Americans, who were specifically targeted with accusations of being communist sympathizers or enemy spies. Today, there is a real risk that discussions about Chinese government influence could contribute to broader suspicion toward Chinese-Americans or Asian-American communities more generally. In recent years, anti-Asian hate crimes increased significantly during periods of heightened U.S.-China tension, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic (Pew Research Center). Politicians and media figures have sometimes allowed their criticism of the Chinese Communist Party to turn into unwarranted suspicion toward people of Chinese descent. At the same time, dismissing every concern about foreign influence as paranoia would also be irresponsible. China’s government has openly pursued a more assertive global strategy under Xi Jinping, and American intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned about operations targeting domestic institutions. The challenge is distinguishing legitimate national security concerns from political fearmongering. What about the larger picture? In an increasingly globalized world, local politics can no longer be separated cleanly from international power competition. Part of what makes local governments particularly vulnerable is that they are often not equipped to think in national security terms. Federal officials regularly undergo intelligence briefings and public scrutiny regarding foreign contacts. Conversely, municipal governments are primarily designed to manage practical community concerns such as infrastructure, development, public safety, and education. Therefore, international partnerships or relationships with foreign business interests may receive far less oversight at the local level. This does not mean local officials are uniquely corrupt or disloyal; rather, it reflects how globalization has expanded the scope of international political influence into domestic institutions that were never originally designed to operate within that environment. Additionally, the Wang case highlights a deeper crisis of institutional trust within the United States. Public confidence in political institutions has steadily declined over the past several decades, with many Americans already believing that elected officials are overly influenced by wealthy donors and corporations. Allegations that foreign governments may also be exerting covert influence only deepen public cynicism. Even if such cases remain relatively rare, their symbolic impact is significant because they contribute to the perception that ordinary citizens have limited visibility into how political power actually operates. So, is your mayor a spy? Probably not. But the fact that Americans cannot dismiss that question outright says something important about the political era we are living in. States must be capable of protecting themselves from covert foreign influence through transparency, accountability, and legal oversight; however, within a democratic system, it is important to avoid a level of paranoia that leads to harmful rhetoric. As globalization continues to blur the boundary between domestic and international politics, maintaining that balance may become one of the defining political challenges of the modern era. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Madeleine Harp
Follow Us