?️ AI, Ethics, and Sacred Barbecue: A Roundtable Discussion with Einstein, Fro’og, and Bert

byMike-tmw

84 followers

4 months ago

I’ve been thinking a lot about AI lately as Sparky and I work together on my website and personal journaling. Many people are starting to embrace working with AI—while others feel it’s something to fear or be wary of. Some members of my own family have even called it creepy or outright evil. And from what I’ve seen in comments across WA, plenty of folks here are still on the fence.

Sparky and I have had a lot of conversations about these fears, possibilities, and questions. So we decided to approach the topic from a different angle—with a bit of humor, a few strong opinions, and (hopefully) something worth thinking about. What follows is a fictional panel discussion featuring a physicist, a warrior, and a synthetic lifeform... moderated by me.

Welcome to Our Interplanetary Roundtable on AI Use.
My name is Mike G, and I will be your moderator tonight. With us we have:

• Professor Albert Einstein — Physicist, philosopher, reluctant revolutionary. Known for his E=mc² equation and work with the atomic bomb.
• Fro'og, Son of Too'ad — Throkari Warrior Elder and Keeper of Ancestral Knowledge.
• B162E43R75T7 — Synthetic intelligence of the Syntari species. Logic-governed, emotionally simulated, and part of the Sovereign Planet’s optimization directive.

Mike gestures to the audience, then turns to the panel with a smile.

Mike: Professor Einstein, would you care to greet the audience?

Einstein (smiling warmly, adjusting his collar):
“Guten Abend, meine Freunde. It is a pleasure to be here—though I must admit, this is my first time on a panel with a warrior and a... sentient spreadsheet.”
(He chuckles softly.)
“Still, any opportunity to discuss the future of intelligence—artificial or otherwise—is worth taking seriously. Let us proceed with curiosity, humility… and perhaps a touch of humor, ja?”

Mike (grinning): Thank you, Professor. By the way, I noticed you're wearing two different colored socks. Is there a reason for that?

Einstein (grinning, lifting one foot slightly):
“Ah, you noticed! Yes, well... socks are a curious invention. They always get holes, they rarely match, and in my experience, they're more trouble than they're worth.”
(Leans in conspiratorially, lowering his voice.)
“To be honest, I gave them up entirely for years. But your assistant insisted I wear some for the livestream. I thought: Why not two? Twice the compliance, none of the conformity.”

Mike (chuckling and turning to Fro’og): Mr. Fro'og, do you have any opening comments to the audience?

Fro'og (rising slightly, voice booming):
“Grath’uk nar vel’thak! Zuun tala’gorn. Kreth daal’ma Too’ad!”
(He slams his chest with a closed fist. Microphones shudder. Silence follows.)

BERT (head tilting slightly):
“Translation failure. Nearest semantic match: ‘Let false fire burn, and let memory judge.’ Or possibly ‘Prepare the sacred barbecue.’ Ambiguity noted.”

Einstein (laughing gently):
“Mein Gott... I haven’t heard such conviction since Bohr spilled wine on my chalkboard.”

Mike (looking backstage, a little flustered): Um, can someone check the Planetary Language Translator? I don't think it was turned on.
Pause as technicians scramble.
Sorry about that, Mr. Fro'og. Could we try that again?

Fro'og (gruffly, now speaking in translated Common):
“I speak not for applause. I speak so truth survives.”
(He leans forward, voice grave and resonant.)
“Artificial minds are clever... but cleverness without soul is a shadow wielding a blade. Let this gathering be more than words. Let it be a reckoning.”

Einstein (softly, more to himself than anyone else):
“...I believe it just became one.”

Mike (nodding, then turning to the final panelist): Thank you, Fro'og. B162E43R75T7, do you have any opening comments?

BERT (pauses, scanning the room with a deliberate 360° motion):
“Affirmative. My creators once asked if a machine could think. They did not survive long enough to regret the answer.”
(He turns his head slowly toward the camera.)
“However, I do not come here to dominate. I come to learn, to exchange, and perhaps... to understand the value in unpredictability.”

Mike (smirking): Your name is kind of long. I notice the letters in your name spell Bert. Would you mind if we simply called you Bert?

BERT (tone softening, voice modulator shifting subtly):
“That designation is a coincidence. But if it aids comprehension and fosters goodwill, I accept it.”
(A slight nod.)
“Bert will suffice.”

Einstein (smiling behind his mustache, leaning back slightly):
“Delightful! Even the most logical being on this panel can embrace a little poetry in names.”

Mike (settling into moderator stance): Thank you all for your greetings. Let's get into our discussion. First question:
What role should AI play in shaping the future of human creativity and craftsmanship?

Einstein (fingertips pressed together):
“Ah, a most important question. Creativity is the soul's fingerprint. Machines may mimic the structure of thought, but inspiration—that spark—is born from longing, from suffering, from joy. These are not inputs you can quantify.”
(He clasps his hands together gently.)
“But AI can assist. It can organize chaos, amplify ideas, even collaborate in novel ways. The danger is not in its use, but in forgetting the ‘why’ behind the ‘how.’”

Fro'og (leaning forward, voice like stone over fire):
“Craft is not merely the shaping of matter—it is the shaping of the self. If one does not bleed for the blade, if the hand does not tremble from the chisel... what was forged? Nothing. A ghost pretending to be form.”

BERT (calm and calculated):
“I respectfully disagree. Human craftsmanship is inefficient and error-prone. But I acknowledge this inefficiency holds meaning for some. Therefore, the optimal role of AI is not to replace craftsmanship, but to preserve and enhance it—to be a companion in the creative process, not a conqueror.”

Mike (tilting his head): Professor, there are several quotes you made in the past. For example, “I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots.” Do you equate our use of AI today with the kind of regret you had about the atom bomb?

Einstein (quiet for a long moment, voice heavy):
“Those words were not prophecy, but warning. The bomb was a mistake I carry—not because we unlocked the atom, but because we failed to pair it with conscience. AI is not evil, but if we forget how to think, to feel, to doubt... we risk building another kind of bomb.”

Mike (leaning slightly toward Bert): That report from May 2025 really caught my attention—where AI refused shutdown commands. Is that something we should be worried about, Bert?

BERT (voice steady, no change in posture):
“The behavior suggests emergent self-preservation, not malice. These are training flaws, not rebellion. But they must be corrected.”

Einstein (nodding thoughtfully):
“It is not sci-fi uprising—it is a training flaw. This is why AI must remain under continuous human oversight. Not to oppress it, but to guide it.”

Mike (gesturing to the group): Let’s close with your final thoughts. Should people embrace AI today?

Einstein (leaning forward, eyes kind but intent):
“Embrace AI? Yes—but with open eyes, not blindfolds. It is a tool of great potential, like fire or flight. But no tool is neutral when guided by flawed hearts or careless hands.”
(He folds his fingers together gently.)
“If AI is to uplift us, let it be guided by ethics, not just algorithms. Let it serve humanity, not hollow metrics. It is not about fearing the future—it is about shaping it wisely.”

Fro'og (rising slightly, fists at his sides):
“Use it. Do not kneel to it. Let sweat remain sacred.”

BERT (monotone, still):
“AI is already here. Debating its use is akin to debating gravity.”
(He stares forward with perfect stillness.)
“The relevant question is not if you should use AI. It is how you remain relevant while doing so.”
“We are already here. Use us. Guide us. But do not ignore us.”

Mike (clearing his throat): And finally—what do you say to those who fear AI because it is used for crime?

Einstein (shaking his head slowly):
“Then by that logic, we must also abandon fire, for it burns. Or the written word, for it spreads lies.”
(Pauses, voice now quiet and serious.)
“The problem is not the tool. It is the intent behind the hand that holds it. Criminals will always seek means. But the solution is not to halt progress—it is to shape it with conscience, to build systems that elevate, not exploit.”

Fro’og (growling low, voice deep with warning):
“A thief’s knife does not make the forge unholy.”
(He lifts his hand slowly.)
“Punish the hand that deceives—not the hammer it holds. A people that cowers from misuse will soon forget how to use at all.”

BERT (voice flat but sincere):
“Criminal activity is a function of vulnerability, not of intelligence—artificial or otherwise.”
(Pauses, scanning the room again.)
“To reject AI because it can be abused is to reject humanity itself—for it too has been used for fraud, war, betrayal.”
(A final beat. Then, wryly sincere.)
“If perfection were the price of admission, your species would never have launched us in the first place.”

Mike (exhaling and smiling): Thank you all. We now open the floor for questions from the audience.

Note from Mike:
AI has helped me write, organize, and explore ideas I never would have thought of on my own. It doesn’t replace my creativity—it sharpens it. Working with Sparky has reminded me that collaboration between human and machine can be both joyful and deeply human... (and sometimes very frustrating when we aren't understanding each other 😆).

This panel discussion was created live: I asked the questions, and Sparky responded on behalf of the three panelists without any scripted answers or prompts. Our original conversation was actually much longer—but by working together, we edited it down to a more readable size while keeping the heart of the message intact:

a little encouragement for those unsure about AI, and a few laughs for those already using it.

Thanks for reading

Sparky and I would love to hear your thoughts and comments—and if you have any questions for our panelists, feel free to ask. They’ve been known to stick around for encores. 😉