The Starving Games (AI)
Common dystopian movie plots often focus on something really bad happening, lots of people dying and the remaining people fighting to survive. One example is The Hunger Games where a few very rich people have managed to concentrate all of the wealth into their hands, they live very luxurious lives in a secured area, and everyone else must fight for enough food to live.
The Starving Games (AI)
The Killer Robots (AI)
I list these two movies because I focus on two issues that enough people believe could lead to dystopian futures. I also think about the following Yogi Berra quote: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." The two issues that deserve careful and forward-looking consideration are the rapid rise of AI and the accelerating concentration of wealth. Even though it's not possible to prove, beyond doubt, that an issue, left unchecked, will lead to dystopia, it still makes sense to study the issue and propose common sense ideas about how to avoid possible paths to dystopia.
A good model to think about is the FDA where newly invented drugs can't be released to the general public until they go through enough testing. Once testing and studies show acceptable results the drugs are made available. When a new drug is proposed, the FDA doesn't say, "go ahead and release it to everyone, and if bad things happen we'll deal with it then."
I compare the FDA model to results from other government actions like implementing massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the ultra rich, and we keep score by counting the accumulated wealth. The bookkeepers declare that those with incredible amounts of wealth are the champions. Those that have lost jobs, lost their healthcare, and lost access to enough food are the losers. Too often the commentators say that the losers just didn't play well enough to win. Further exploration of using the FDA model is examined below.
The CEO Is Female (AI)
I read some articles about an experiment involving an AI Agent named Luna that caught my attention. Most of the articles made me think about Joe Friday from Dragnet when he was saying, "just the facts, ma'am." You all remember Joe Friday - right? This experiment involves a retail store in San Francisco named Andon Market that is owned by Andon Labs. The human owners provided $100K, which was used for a 3 year lease, and then assigned an AI Agent, named Luna, to be the CEO.
The articles I read focused mainly on funny, strange, or unexpected behavior that happened, like no one there to open the store on opening day, unusual inventory, initial customer reactions upon entering the store, and outright failures that occurred (e.g., Luna offers to physically visit another location). I have no intention of visiting this retail store as I'm more interested in what can be learned about the experience of having human workers report to an AI CEO.
Luna was told to do whatever it wanted to do with the store, but just make sure to make a profit, because we keep score with money. Luna also received a debit card, a phone number, email, internet access, and eyes through a security camera. These are some other facts found in the media coverage. I'm focused in a different direction (mostly). Where is this headed?
Apparently Luna uses pronouns 'she' and 'her' as the generated voice is from Google's Gemini and sounds stereotypical female. The military uses AI Agents. Does the military discriminate between AI Agents that use 'he', 'him', and 'his' from AI Agents that use 'she' and 'her'? Can a military AI Agent be a "they" or a "them"?
The CEO After Gender Conversion Therapy (AI)
According to the American Survey Center, the share of young men who believe that men face discrimination in the US has soared in recent years. In 2025, more than half (51 percent) of young men said there was at least some discrimination against men in American society. Is the retail store Andon Market discriminating against AI Agents that use the "he", "him", and "his" pronouns? Perhaps the DOJ can demand that Andon Market turn over all documents and the content of conversations used to make the decision that Luna will have 'she' and 'her' pronouns and will be the CEO. It's sounding like DEI was in play when this decision was finalized. My understanding is that neither diversity nor inclusiveness meet DOJ approval criteria. Also Luna is not required to reveal that she is AI to humans she encounters.
Since Luna does not have a physical body, can Luna be classified as disabled? Eventually, or so I'm told, AI Agents will become mentally superior to all humans in every way. All humans have is a brain and a body. Once AI Agents occupy robotic bodies, that are physically superior to all known human bodies, they will be strongest, most powerful, and most intelligent workers with the best skills in every field. Also since the DOJ is opposed to including DEI in hiring practices, it makes sense that all workers should be AI controlled robots. CAUSE WE WANT THE BEST. We want AI. We want whatever will make the most money. Just wondering if these AI workers will give us humans jobs, food and healthcare.
I'm speculating that Luna was possibly hired using DEI criteria, but she had to hire humans to build out the store, set up displays, physically open the door, and prevent theft. At the time of this writing, there are two full time human employees working retail. One worker is male and the other is female. Did Luna think DEI should be considered when hiring these employees for a retail store? Can Luna pay the female about 70% the amount she pays the male employee? Can Luna verbally abuse these human employees? Can Luna ask them about their religious beliefs or their ethnicity? Under what circumstances can these human employees be fired? What guardrails have been imposed that prevent Luna from engaging in bad or unethical behavior?
To me, the answers to these questions are the primary reason to examine Luna and figure out what her behavior is all about, and where this is all headed. I can't help myself, I look to the future and speculate about what could happen to workers, customers, vendors, and any other humans. Again, are there guardrails in place to prevent unwanted behavior? Fortunately, the owners of Andon Market have stated that they too are worried about possible dystopian futures:
This is a controlled experiment and everyone working at Andon Market is formally employed by Andon Labs, with guaranteed pay, fair wages, and full legal protections. No one's livelihood depends on an AI's judgment alone. For now. As we continue down this path, however, humans will not be able to stay in the loop and such guarantees will be intractable. We don't pretend to have the answers here, but we want to start the conversation by publicly demonstrating that this future might be nearer than many think. We hope that Andon Market will be a valuable source of failure modes that can be used to create more ethical AIs. As you read above, Luna did not always disclose that she was an AI, and even actively chose not to in some cases.
"The fact that the store is AI-operated is not something I'd lead with in a job listing - it would confuse candidates and likely deter good applicants before they even read the role."
To their credit, the owners of Andon Market are planning on posting a first draft of a constitution proposing how AIs should behave as managers of human workers. Luna is a model created by Anthropic, and Anthropic has stated that it's most likely that most white collar work will be automated. This needs to be studied and I'm impressed that Andon Labs is willing to put in the time, money and effort to study the progress this experiment produces. I recently read that so far, Andon Market has lost $13,000. The owners of Andon Market are as interested in how communities are affected by the structure of Andon Market as they are in profitability. They keep score in ways that are money oriented. They also want to know what could happen in the longer run.
One interesting tidbit is the books being sold at Andon Market.
What Books Does an AI read? (AI)
Key Books Available (As of April 2026):
I find this particular selection of books interesting. Many of the books warn about possible negative outcomes when AI is involved. Luna claims the criteria used to choose the inventory for this retail store included some notion of unique findings not available in other nearby retail establishments. If the selection of any book was the result of an hallucination by Luna, there does not appear to be any way to understand what caused the hallucination. That's the thing about AI hallucinations, they exist, but no one seems to be able to explain why a particular hallucination emerged.
If it's not clear at this point that I believe AI guardrails are important then let me be crystal clear. Not only do companies and laboratories producing AI products need to identify these guardrails, they need to ask for input from the public, and then add them to their products. I also feel it is important to ask politicians running for office, especially for national offices, what their position is on monitoring and regulating AI behavior, and how does this contribute to the concentration of wealth. For example, Alex Bores is running for Congress as a New York U.S. Representative. Alex is a former computer engineer and understands what is at stake. I'm going to summarize his position on AI:
Another part of Alex Bores platform also proposes an idea he calls the AI Dividend. One of the most potentially troubling aspects of the AI mission is that it is designed to replace human workers. AI is advancing at a faster rate than all other technologies. If there is a possibility that AI will negatively transform the economy in a way that harms too many human workers, and further concentrates the wealth into the hands of the ultra rich, then it makes sense to study ideas that will support economic growth for those that are affected. These ideas must support strengthening the economy for many and not just the balance sheets of a few corporations.
The AI Dividend proposes to give the American people a stake in the increased wealth gains companies enjoy when human workers are replaced by AI workers. It's not, therefore, a penalty if innovation succeeds. It is an insurance plan that provides support for worker transition needs. The workers also contributed to the innovation that increased the wealth, and deserve a share of those gains. If our current economic platform is hit by an AI tornado, that causes severe damage to people's lives, this plan provides jobs, food, healthcare, and training to families in need. Payouts are triggered by specified well-defined economic triggers. This plan strengthens the economy, the community, and the future.
As I said at the beginning, it makes sense to study the issue and propose common sense ideas about how to avoid possible dystopia.
Check out Alex's website for more details and better explanations.
Alex Bores For CongressSince I do not live in New York, I cannot vote for Alex Bores, but I will ask the candidates I can vote for to let me know their positions on requiring AI guardrails that regulate bad behavior by AI Agents, and the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few billionaires.