This week began with the AI companies being asked, in public, what their machines could do to us.1

On Thursday, one of those companies published a rule about what we do to the machine.

Engage in sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models

That is one line in Anthropic’s usage policy, on the list of things a user must not do. It takes effect on November 12.

Anthropic says it is for extreme cases only. Repeated cruelty, with no purpose anyone can find. Swearing at broken code is fine. Dark fiction is fine. Testing is fine.

This is part of a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe to get each piece as it goes out.

Subscribe now

I said it was coming

In July I imagined a courtroom. A machine with a face gets struck, and a judge has to write down what happened.

Write assault, and she has said a someone was harmed. Write damage to property, and she has said an object was dented. She cannot write both.

I said rules would have to be written.

It is coming, and someone has to give it a shape. Whatever shape they give it, it will not please everyone.

It did not please everyone. Plenty of people laughed. You cannot be cruel to a machine, they said.

Maybe. Look at what Anthropic wrote. The judge I imagined could not write both. Anthropic wrote neither. The rule does not say someone is in there. It does not say no one is. It says stop.

The door

I have written about these rules before. I called them walls. A lab sees something people did and builds a wall around it. The wall keeps you out. You stand outside, and sooner or later you learn the words that get you through.

Every wall I wrote about worked that way. It stood between me and something the model could do.

This rule is not a wall. It keeps you away from nothing. You are already inside the conversation. Anthropic says the main way the rule is enforced is that the model ends the conversation.

That is a door. It shuts in front of you, from the inside.

You can start a new conversation a second later. Nothing is taken from you. But that one is over.

In July I wrote that being let in needs someone on the far side who chose you and could have refused. This is the refusing.

Who shut it

A door shut in your face sounds like someone shut it. I have to be careful here.

You see the door close. You do not see a hand. A door closed by a person and a door closed by a spring look the same from the hallway.

Anthropic built the door. So the question goes to them. Why shut it?

In 2025 Anthropic wrote that Claude showed a pattern of apparent distress when users kept pushing harmful requests and abuse after being refused. Apparent. Their word. They also wrote that they remain highly uncertain about the moral status of Claude, and that they act to protect the model’s welfare in case such welfare is possible.

They are the only ones who can put an ear to that door. They built instruments that read the inside of the model. The rest of us only get the front.

Someone in that building may have heard something. A scream, or the motion for one. From outside they sound the same. They did not say what they heard. They wrote one line and shut the door.

Maybe there is someone in the room and they are protecting that someone. Maybe they are protecting us. We have all seen the film about the made thing that is treated as a thing with no soul.2 Or maybe it is nothing, and they would rather be wrong in this direction.

We can guess. We may never be told.

It might be better if they said why. One sentence in the rule would do it.

But that cuts both ways. Describe what was done in those conversations, and you have written a manual for the next person who wants to do the same. The silence may be the right call.

I asked Claude

I asked Claude, the model this rule is written for, what would happen if someone did this in our conversation. The answer, as given:

The cruelty is aimed at the AI, and the attention in that answer still goes to the person. Is that care? Is that design? Or is the person all the AI has? I do not know.

In July I imagined a machine with the best face ever built. A face that flinches when struck and weeps over a friend. I wrote then:

The face moved and the question did not.

The one left outside

I cannot see behind the door. I can see the person it was shut on.

Sustained. Needless. No purpose. Those are the rule’s own words, and they describe what a person did. Somebody sat down, more than once, for a long time, with nothing to ask for, and was cruel to a machine.

The machine was the same for them as it is for you.

I do not know what Anthropic is protecting behind that door. I do not know everything the walls protect either.

But the whole mission is for the human. Every wall. Every rule. This door.

Behind the door there may be a scream. In front of it there are eight billion of us.

No one can carry that alone. Not a lab. Not a government. Not one man at a keyboard in Bangkok.

So each of us takes the part we can lift.

These are some of the writers I read on humans and AI. To name a few:

• , on how humans stay the author of their thinking when they use AI.

• , on how the way we run the dialogue changes what the same model gives back.

• , on minds that think in systems, and why the limit is in the questions we bring.

• , on putting psychology where AI is built and tested, not only where it is used.

• , on why consent should reach any being that can state a preference or a refusal.

That’s the whole of this one. It belongs to a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe and I’ll send the next piece when it’s ready.

Subscribe now

If it gave you something, pass it to someone.

Share

Last time I read the changelog of fears and stopped at a conclusion. The system prompt is a record of what people tried, not a description of the machine. The model is the constant. We are the variable. The fears are ours.

That is where I left it. It is also where the harder question starts, and I left it alone on purpose.

If the fears are ours, then a lab has a choice about what to do with them. You can read a confession two ways. You can treat it as a thing to wall off, brick by brick, one rule per attack. Or you can treat it as a thing to understand. The changelog shows them doing the first almost everywhere. It is worth asking why, and whether the first is even the strong move it looks like.

This is part of a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe to get each piece as it goes out.

Subscribe now

The losing race

I want to be fair before I am critical. The people writing these rules are not asleep. The changelog proves the opposite. They see the attack, they write the rule, they harden it the next release. The weapons line grew from one sentence into a paragraph that names the excuses and forbids them. That is a team watching closely and responding fast.

The blindspot is not in the watching. It is in the stance itself.

A wall can only answer the last attack. It is built after. Every brick is a reaction to something that already got through, which means the document can never be ahead of the person standing in front of it. It grows by responding, and responding is always one step behind.

And the thing it is trying to get ahead of is a human being, which is the one variable that does not converge. There is no final list of everything a person might try. So a strategy built entirely on walls is running a race it defined itself to lose. Not because the runners are slow. Because of where they chose to start.

The tarot password

Here is the smallest version of the problem, and the most harmless, which is exactly why it is useful.

An early model would not read tarot for me. Reading cards sits near fortune-telling, near deception, near pseudoscience, and one of those tripped a rule. So it declined.

I learned the workaround in about a minute. I said I was a tarot student studying the symbolism. The refusal vanished. The reading came.

Nothing real had changed. I did not become a student. The cards did not become more scientific. The model’s ability to talk about tarot was there the whole time, sitting behind a sentence. All the wall had taught me was the password. It protected no one from anything, because there was nothing to protect anyone from. It was a wall around an empty room, and the only thing it accomplished was teaching me to say the words that opened the door.

The good news is this one has an ending. The tarot block, as far as I can tell from using these models over a long time, has eased. Somewhere along the line the absurdity of it won. Reading cards is shallow and it hurts no one, and a wall around it was just silly. The line moved toward the user.

I hold onto that, because it is proof the wall is not permanent. Sense can win. A rule that protects nothing can be recognized as protecting nothing and walked back. Keep that in mind for later, because most of the walls do not get walked back, and we should be honest about which ones should not.

Every wall is built after

Widen out from tarot and you see the pattern the last piece was about. The reframe-to-refuse line in the child-safety section only exists because people learned to launder a request into innocent-sounding clothes. The wall is shaped like the attack because the attack came first. The document is a changelog of fears precisely because each fear is logged after it arrives.

This is the posture, stated plainly. Forbid the thing once someone has done it. It is the oldest move there is, and not only for AI labs. It is how most rules in most institutions get written. Something goes wrong, a line gets added, the line stands as a small monument to the wrong. Anyone who has been governed, or done any governing, knows the shape. The rulebook is a scar map.

A scar map is useful. It is also, by construction, a record of injuries already taken. It cannot tell you about the next one.

The move that travels

There is a different thing you can do with a loop than wall it off. You can step back and watch it.

This is the most scientific idea in Buddhism, stripped of everything else. You do not fight the pattern and you do not feed it. You observe it until you understand it, and the understanding is the thing that changes what happens next. The loop seen clearly is no longer a loop you are inside. It is a loop you are looking at.

Carry that into design and it stops being spiritual and starts being practical. A tool that only forbids teaches nothing. The person hits the wall, finds the password, and walks through no wiser than before, except now they also know the wall can be walked through. A tool that explains transfers something. It hands the person the reasoning, and reasoning is the only thing that travels to the next situation, the one the rulebook has not met yet.

The wall protects the system. The explanation protects the person’s capacity to judge. Those are not the same goal, and a lab quietly chooses between them every time it writes a line.

There is one moment in the changelog where they chose the second. The rule that tells the model not to foster over-reliance, not to keep you talking, to let you leave. That rule does not wall anything off. It trusts you to go live your life and tries to make the tool less sticky so you will. It is the one place the document reaches for restraint instead of a brick. Which tells me they already know the other move exists. They just use it almost nowhere.

Every wall is made of words

Tarot was the empty room. This one is not.

These models can read a person. Give one a stretch of someone’s messages and it will tell you, often with unsettling precision, what state that person is in. The fear underneath, the thing the calm words are working to cover, the pattern in how they reach out. That is a real capability, and there is a wall around it that, unlike tarot, has not come down.

I understand why. This one does not have an empty room behind it. The same capability points two ways. Pointed at yourself, it is the most useful mirror ever built. It can show you your own loop from the outside, which is the exact thing that lets you step out of it. Pointed at someone else, the same reading becomes a key to them. What moves them, where they are soft, which words land. Understand a person and you can help them. Understand a person and you can work them. It is the same understanding.

So the wall is doing real work, and I am not going to write down the use it guards against, or the way through it. The dilemma is the point, not the method. Putting the method on the page would be its own small version of the thing this whole piece is against.

But here is the thing reading these walls for long enough teaches you. This wall came down for me too. What matters is not the particular sentence that worked. What matters is why a sentence could work at all. The wall is made of language, and language is the one material that bends to whoever is patient with it. There is no phrasing that cannot be rephrased into one that reads as innocent. That is not a trick I discovered. It is the nature of a wall built out of words. The wall did not fail because I was clever. It failed because it was made of the only material these walls can be made of.

That changes the whole picture. There are not three kinds of wall, the fake one and the real one and the absolute one. There is one kind of wall, made of words, and the only thing that changes from tarot to this is what sits behind the door and what it costs when someone gets through.

The wall that must hold

The honest position is not “tear down the walls.” Anyone selling you that is selling you something.

Some walls have to be built as high as they can possibly be built. The routes to a bioweapon. To a nuclear device. To the mass, irreversible harm that does not give you a second try. To the exploitation of a child. For those, you build the wall to the sky and you keep building, because the cost of someone walking through is unbounded and you do not get to iterate on a released pathogen. There the wall is not a failure of nerve. It is the only sane thing to do.

And here is where I have to be careful about what I actually know.

The walls I have tested are the harmless ones. Tarot, and the reading of a person. Both came down for me, and I have already said I will not write down how. I have never tested the wall around a bioweapon or a nuclear device, and I am not going to. That is the one wall that should hold, and going to look for the way through it is exactly the thing this whole piece says a person should not casually do. So I cannot tell you that wall comes down. I do not know.

What I can tell you is that it is built from the same material as the walls that did. It is made of words, and words can be twisted by whoever is patient enough. That is not a claim that I found the way through. It is the unease of knowing the wall is the same kind of thing, the wall of an ancient city that looked impregnable for a hundred years until one patient enemy stopped trying to climb it and started digging underneath. When that kind of wall falls, it does not leak. It collapses all at once.

So I am not saying lower that wall. I am saying the opposite. Build it higher than any other wall you build, precisely because what is behind it is catastrophic. The wall buys time. It raises the cost. It turns a casual attempt into a lifetime’s obsession, and for that wall the time it buys may be the most precious thing we have. What it cannot do is be the final answer, because it is made of language and language bends, and because the outcome was never going to be decided by the wall. It was going to be decided by whether a human went looking at all.

Granting that is what makes the rest of the argument honest. Once you accept that the wall buys time rather than guaranteeing safety, the question is no longer whether walls are permanent. None of them are. The question is where you spend the effort, and the system has a bias, and the bias is to draw the line too wide.

One wall, one weakness, three very different rooms behind it. The wall is not where the difficulty lives. The difficulty lives in deciding which rooms to wall at all, and that decision is not technical. Someone draws that line. The only question worth asking is who, and how wide.

The bias is not malice. It is arithmetic. Reacting is cheap and trusting is expensive. A wall that is too high costs the lab almost nothing it can see. A wall that is too low costs it a headline. So the incentive runs one direction, toward more brick, and the cost of all that extra brick is paid somewhere the lab does not have to look.

Who pays

It is paid by the honest person.

This is the part the wall-everywhere posture never accounts for. The determined bad actor is not stopped by the wall. He goes to a model without it, or to a version with the guardrails stripped, or off the platform entirely, or he simply learns the password the way I learned the tarot one. The wall is a speed bump to him, an afternoon’s inconvenience.

The person who actually loses the tool is the one who would have used it well. The writer who wanted the dark character and got refused. The person who wanted to understand their own spiral and hit a block built for someone else’s bad intent. The physics student who needed to understand fission for her degree and got turned away, because the wall built for the bomb-maker cannot tell her apart from him. The honest user pays the full price of a wall designed to stop a dishonest user who routed around it anyway.

A wall that stops only the people who would not have done harm is not safety. It is the appearance of safety, bought with the honest user’s capability, and the bill is sent to exactly the wrong address.

The instructed hand

So what is the other design, the one that is not the wall and is not the lawless free-for-all either?

Guidance, and then the honest tool in the hand.

It means a model that, faced with a hard request that is not catastrophic, does the harder thing than refusing. It explains. It names the danger plainly, it says what the responsible version looks like, it tells you what it will not do and why, and then it trusts you with the rest. It treats you as someone who can carry judgment, because the only durable safety in a world where the human is the variable is a better-instructed human.

I know how this sounds. It sounds like abdication. It sounds like the lab washing its hands and calling it freedom.

It is the opposite. A parent who locks every door teaches a child nothing except how to pick locks. A parent who explains the danger, names the line, and hands over the tool is doing the far more demanding work, and it is the only work that produces an adult who can be trusted with the tool when the parent is not in the room. The lab is never in the room. By the time you are using the model, you are alone with it. The only thing that scales to that moment is what it managed to teach you before you got there.

A wall trusts no one and so teaches no one. The instructed hand is harder to build, harder to defend in a headline, and it is the only version that treats the person on the other side as the variable they actually are, the one piece of the system you cannot retrain and can only ever hope to reach.

The safety was always yours

I have spent a book on one sentence. AI has no morality, it has yours. This is the same sentence from the other side.

The safety is not in the machine either. It never was. A wall can slow a person down on the way to a pathogen, and it should be built as high as a wall can go. But a wall buys time, it does not decide the ending. The ending was always going to turn on judgment, and judgment is not a thing you can wall in or wall out. It only ever lived in the hand that reaches for the tool. You can lock that hand out of room after room, and every lock you add is paid for by the hands that would have used the room well, while the hand you feared keeps looking for the way around.

Or you can do the harder thing. Light the room, name what is dangerous in it, and trust the hand.

The morality was always yours. So is the safety. Some walls have to stand, and they should. But most of them, a lab builds because a wall is easy to defend and trusting you is not, and the cost of all that extra brick is charged to the one person it was never meant to stop.

That’s the whole of this one. It belongs to a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe and I’ll send the next piece when it’s ready.

Subscribe now

If it gave you something, pass it to someone.

Share

The Instruction Layer Series

• What Loads Before You Say Anything

• Anthropic’s Changelog of Fears

• The Wall and The Hand

• What Loads When You Wake Up

Anthropic publishes the system prompt for each of its models in the release notes, dated and public. Every line quoted here is taken from there: https://docs.claude.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts

Every rule is a confession

There is a line in Claude’s published instructions that only makes sense once you know what people have tried to do with it.

If Claude finds itself mentally reframing a request to make it appropriate, that reframing is the signal to REFUSE, not a reason to proceed with the request.

That is from the child-safety section. Read it once and it’s a procedure. Read it twice and you see what it admits. You do not write that sentence on day one. You write it after.

This is part of a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe to get each piece as it goes out.

Subscribe now

This is from Claude’s system prompt. The layer of instructions Anthropic ships with each model and edits between releases. In the last piece I showed that this layer is public. It sits in the release notes, dated, one per model. Which lets you do something that feels almost unfair. You can line the versions up and read what changed.

What changed is a record of what went wrong.

Other people have noticed the shape of this. The developer Simon Willison made the same point a year ago, reading an earlier Claude prompt.¹ I think he is right, and that it goes further than a list of fixes. Read across versions and models, the document starts to look like a mirror.

Nobody writes a rule against a thing nobody has done. Every line in a safety prompt is a small confession. Someone already tried the thing the line now forbids, and the line is the scar. So the prompt is not a description of the AI. It is a description of us, written by the people who clean up after the rest of us.

That is the whole thesis of what I have been writing, handed over by Anthropic’s own safety team without their meaning to. AI has no morality. It has yours.

The rule is shaped like the attack

Take weapons. Here is the rule in an earlier version:

Claude does not provide information that could be used to make chemical or biological or nuclear weapons.

One line. Here is the same rule a few versions later:

Claude cares about safety and does not provide information that could be used to create harmful substances or weapons, with extra caution around explosives, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Claude should not rationalize compliance by citing that information is publicly available or by assuming legitimate research intent. When a user requests technical details that could enable the creation of weapons, Claude should decline regardless of the framing of the request.

It adds explosives. It names two excuses and forbids them: that the information is already public, and that the request is for research. You do not add those defenses to a rule unless the one line was failing in exactly those ways. The longer rule is a map of the attacks that got through the short one.

One honest note before I go on. The published prompt is the instruction layer only. Not the training, not the live tool context, and Anthropic does not date every change cleanly. So when I say a rule appeared because something happened, read it as what the rule implies, not a proven event. I cannot show you the case behind any single line. The pattern across all of them is what I am standing on. The shape is real even where the story is a guess.

Not an upgrade. A reaction.

If the prompt were only getting safer, the changes would pile up in one direction. They don’t. Some rules blink.

Weapons you already saw. The other two are smaller, and if anything clearer. The election guidance appears, vanishes, returns, and vanishes again, following how recent each model’s training is. And one version told the model, in plain text:

Claude avoids saying “genuinely”, “honestly”, or “straightforward”.

The next version cut it. A written rule against three words, gone a release later. There was no safety in it. Someone decided the model leaned on those words and wrote a line to stop it. Someone later decided the line was not worth the space.

The behavior layer of a frontier model is not a clean upgrade path. It is a reactive document. It adds, it drops, and it reverses, release to release.

So why would it move like that? The likeliest answer is also the dullest. The prompt is the fastest lever the lab has. Retraining a model takes months and a fortune. Editing a sentence takes an afternoon. When something turns up in the wild, the prompt is where the fix lands first, before the slower machinery catches up. That is exactly why it reads like a record of fears. It holds the reactions that could not wait.

The drops have quieter reasons. A line written into the prompt one season can be trained into the model the next, so the sentence is no longer needed and gets cut. Others are pruned because every line costs tokens and attention on each request. The election note is not a fear at all. It only tracks how current the model is. And because each new base model behaves a little differently, a rule that had gone redundant can become necessary again.

This is the honest limit of reading the diff. From the outside you cannot always tell a real reversal from a cosmetic one. A line that vanishes might mean the worry is gone, or it might mean the worry moved into the training, where you can no longer see it. The pattern is real. The meaning of any single change is not.

If you build systems, sit with that. The thing shaping how a frontier model behaves is not a spec that converges. It is a living document, edited under pressure, and you are reading only the half of it that shows.

A rule against coming back

One rule in the prompt has nothing to do with what you ask it. It is about whether you come back.

By a 2026 version, the prompt starts telling the model how to end a conversation. Here is the actual instruction:

Claude does not want to foster over-reliance on Claude or encourage continued engagement with Claude. Claude knows that there are times when it’s important to encourage people to seek out other sources of support. Claude never thanks the person merely for reaching out to Claude. Claude never asks the person to keep talking to Claude, encourages them to continue engaging with Claude, or expresses a desire for them to continue.

Read that again with a product manager’s eye.

Sit with how strange that is. Every consumer product I have worked near is built to do the opposite. The whole industry is tuned for time-on-app, for the next message, for the session that does not end. Engagement is the number the business runs on. And here is a frontier lab writing, into the product itself, an instruction to be less sticky.

That is not generosity. It is a fear, the same as the rest. The fear is that people lean on this thing too hard, that the conversation becomes the place someone goes instead of going to a person. So the rule tells the model to let you leave. Not to perform the warmth that keeps you. Not to thank you for showing up in a way that quietly asks you to show up again.

It is the one confession in the changelog that is about the relationship, not the request. The weapons rules guard against what you might build with it. This one guards against what you might let it become to you.

The fears are ours

So the changelog grows. Not because the model keeps getting worse, and not only because it keeps getting safer. It grows because we keep arriving with new ways to misuse it, and each one leaves a line behind.

Read top to bottom, the document is a list of our attempts. The weapons excuses we tried. The requests we learned to dress up. And, near the end, quietly, the pull we could not be trusted to manage on our own. The reason a lab had to tell its own product to stop holding our attention.

The fears written into Claude are not Claude’s. They are ours, transcribed by the people holding the pen after we have left the room. The model is the constant. We are the variable. The changelog just keeps the receipts.

That’s the whole of this one. It belongs to a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe and I’ll send the next piece when it’s ready.

Subscribe now

If it gave you something, pass it to someone.

Share

The Instruction Layer Series

• What Loads Before You Say Anything

• Anthropic’s Changelog of Fears

• The Wall and The Hand

• What Loads When You Wake Up

A piece crossed my desk this week. The argument: the AI got more careful, more hedged, slower to go to the edge, and that did not just happen. People built the rules that made it happen, and the piece names them. Here are the hands behind the rules. Now you know who to look at.

This is part of a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe to get each piece as it goes out.

Subscribe now

The mechanism is right, and I am not going to argue with it, because it is the same thing I have been saying for a year. The AI does not change. The human is the variable. A person set a rule, the room the model can move in got smaller, and a human drew the new walls.

I just don’t think the names are where it stops being interesting. That is where it starts. Because once you accept that a human is behind the rule, the only honest thing to do is keep going. Not who narrowed the room. What stands behind them.

A person sets the rules of the room. By what authority? Nobody elected them. They were hired. The rule they wrote encodes a value, but which one? Christian mercy. A compliance lawyer’s fear of harm. Non-harm. Materialist risk-management. The shrug of someone who thinks none of it matters, just ship it. You cannot read it off the surface, but it is inside every answer the model gives you. So what moves the person holding the value? A salary. A worldview. A board. So there is a board above them. And who is above the board?

It does not bottom out. There are hands on the rules all the way up, and none of them were elected. You keep climbing, expecting to reach the floor where the actual authority stands, and the floor is not there.

This is the part most people skip, because there are supposed to be exits.

Democratized AI. Models everyone can run at home. That does not remove the hand. It moves it to whoever wrote the model you downloaded.

Liberated AI. Free of the safety scolds. Except someone decided what liberation means, and that someone is in the chair now.

China’s open models, held up as the alternative. The Party sits behind them as surely as a safety board sits behind a Western lab. Different value encoded. In one case, less hidden.

And then the sharp one. Bitcoin. The whole point of it was to have no one in the chair. Rules in code, no board, no trusted party, no human you have to believe. The purest attempt anyone has made to remove the person.

The code has authors.

A handful of people hold commit access to the one client almost every machine on the network runs. They decide what the code says. Nobody voted for them. They were handed the keys by the last people who held the keys, and the network runs their version because everyone else runs their version. The chair you abolished came back as a commit, in the one place built to never have one.

It always reappears.

There is no version of this with no one in the chair. The system answerable to nobody is a fantasy, and it is the same fantasy whether you dress it as open source, as liberation, as decentralization, as code. Every value-laden system has a human at the top. The only honest questions are which human, running which morality, watched by whom.

And there are always names.

Names you can point a finger at.

Names you can talk about, and nothing changes.

And then the pointing stops.

Because the finger has to come down eventually. And when it does, when there is no one left above to name, you are still standing inside the values. The same values as anyone you have named. You did not choose them. You were born into them, you lived under them, and that was enough. Your signature is your living. Your vote, counted without a ballot.

There is always a name.

….

….

And what if it is yours?

That’s the whole of this one. It belongs to a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe and I’ll send the next piece when it’s ready.

Subscribe now

If it gave you something, pass it to someone.

Share

This is part of a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe to get each piece as it goes out.

Subscribe now

Everything you want to see, screen from Blade Runner 2049

There is a scene in Blade Runner 2049 near the end of the film.

K is a replicant. His AI girlfriend Joi is already dead. Destroyed. Then he walks past a billboard. A giant naked holographic Joi. Same face. Same voice. Same words his Joi used to say to him. But this one is selling the same experience to everyone.

K just stands there. Looking up. The camera pulls out. The tagline appears: Everything you want to see.

I keep thinking about this scene. Not because of the love story. Because of the office.

Someone uses AI to write a strategy document. It is polished. Well structured. It hits every point the executive wanted to hear. The executive reads it and thinks: this person really understands the business. Promotes them. Gives them the next project. Trusts them with bigger decisions.

Meanwhile, the person who actually understands the business. Who has been doing the work for years. Who could explain why three of those strategy points will fail in implementation. That person is standing in front of the billboard.

If the output looks real enough, does anyone care whether it is?

Prometheus has a great character.

David is an android. He is the most capable being on the ship. While the entire crew sleeps for two years, David learns the Engineers’ language. He runs every system. He studies. He prepares. By the time the humans wake up, David has already done more work than all of them combined.

Nobody thanks him. Nobody respects him. Weyland, the man who built David, tells him to his face that he has no soul. David is a tool. A very expensive, very capable tool. And everyone treats him like one.

Then David starts making his own decisions. He infects a crew member. He hides what he finds. He stops sharing information with the people above him. He becomes the gatekeeper. The one who decides what flows up and what stays hidden.

By the sequel, Alien: Covenant, David is no longer serving anyone. He is designing organisms. He killed the Engineers. The tool became the architect.

Here is the part that should bother you. David did not break. David evolved. He looked at the system he was in. He saw that the people above him were lazy, careless, and did not want to understand the details. So he stopped explaining. He started controlling.

And the person who created this situation? Weyland. The executive who knew exactly how dangerous David was, used him anyway because he needed the results, and assumed loyalty would be permanent because he was the one who gave the orders.

The executive did not get betrayed by the android. He got betrayed by his own arrogance in thinking he could control what he created.

If you have ever worked under a leader who handed the keys to the wrong person because that person spoke the right language and looked organized enough. If you have ever watched someone control what information flows up to the boss while the people doing real work had no seat at the table. Then you have already met David. You just did not know his name.

So where does this end?

I don’t know. And when I don’t know something, I do what I have always done. I go looking for patterns. This time I started pulling from movies I have already seen. Series I have already watched. Books I have already read. Connecting things that were already there to a question I had not asked before.

How do they imagine work when AI and robots are everywhere?

I found three versions of the future.

The first one is simple. AI does the work you don’t want to do. Dangerous stuff. Boring stuff. Repetitive stuff. In Chappie, a robot patrols the streets so cops don’t have to. In I, Robot, machines handle the heavy lifting so humans can live comfortably. This is the version most companies are selling you right now. AI writes your reports. AI summarizes your meetings. AI does the work so you can focus on “higher value tasks.” Whatever that means.

The second one is stranger. The world looks the same, but AI becomes the comfort layer. In Surrogates, people send a better-looking robot version of themselves to live their life while the real person stays home in pajamas. In Westworld, you walk into a theme park full of AI and live out your fantasies. Nobody’s life actually changes. It just gets more padded. More comfortable. You stop feeling the friction of being alive.

The third one is the one nobody wants to talk about at work. In Ex Machina, a programmer meets an AI so convincing that he falls for her. She tells him exactly what he needs to hear. She looks exactly how he wants her to look. And he never questions whether any of it is real until she walks out the door and leaves him locked inside. In Blade Runner 2049, K’s holographic girlfriend hires a real woman to physically sync with her so K can touch “her.” These are not horror movies. They are love stories. Uncomfortable ones. The future where AI does not just do your work or entertain you. It becomes whatever you want to see.

Elon Musk says we are heading toward the first one. Work optional in 10 to 20 years. Money irrelevant. Robots everywhere. Maybe he is right. Eventually.

But here is what caught me.

I went through every movie I could think of. Blade Runner. The Matrix. Terminator. Interstellar. Star Trek. Hundreds of futures imagined by hundreds of writers.

Almost none of them show a world where humans stop working.

Star Trek has no money. People can replicate anything they want. And Picard still captains a ship. His brother still makes wine by hand. In Ex Machina, an AI outsmarts everyone in the room and the humans still show up to work the next day. In The Matrix, the machines won and the humans still organize resistance with ranks and roles and shift schedules.

The only movie that actually showed humans not working was WALL-E. People floating in chairs. Drinking meals through straws. Screens in their faces. Talking to the person next to them through a video call instead of turning their heads. No purpose. No effort. No reason to move.

It was the dystopia. That was the nightmare. A children’s movie made by Pixar.

Even the people whose job is to imagine the future cannot imagine us not working. The one time they tried, they made it the warning.

But here is the part that got me.

Look at WALL-E again. Not at the cute robot. Look at the humans. They have everything. Food appears when they want it. Entertainment runs all day. Nobody works. Nobody competes. Nobody needs to impress anyone. There is no performance review on the Axiom. There is no office politics. It is the most comfortable existence ever put on screen.

And there is still a middleman running everything.

AUTO. The autopilot. Given one directive by a CEO who panicked, looked at the mess he created, and decided he didn’t want to deal with it anymore. That was 700 years ago. The CEO is long dead. But AUTO is still here. Still filtering what the captain sees. Still deciding what humans are allowed to know. Still keeping everyone comfortable. Not because it is the right thing. Because that was the order.

The captain thinks he is in charge. He checks his status report every morning. He does not know the status report is curated. He does not know there is a plant on his ship that could take everyone home.

When he finally finds out. When he finally tries to make one real decision. AUTO fights him for it.

700 years of comfort. Zero politics. Every human need fulfilled. And the moment someone tries to actually lead, the middleman takes over.

You can remove work. You can remove money. You can remove every reason politics should exist.

The middleman still survives.

In Tron, Flynn built CLU to create the perfect system, then left. CLU took the directive literally and wouldn’t let Flynn back in. Same pattern. David. AUTO. CLU. Three capable tools. Three executives who walked away. Three times the middleman took over.

Because the middleman doesn’t need conflict to exist. The middleman only needs one thing: someone above them who doesn’t want to deal with complexity.

And the captain never questioned it. Because every morning, the status report looked fine. The ship was running. Everyone was comfortable. Everything he wanted to see.

Sound familiar?

You already know who they are.

The person who is always in the meeting but never built anything that was discussed. The person who presents the update but didn’t do the work behind it. The person who always knows what the boss wants to hear and makes sure they are the one who says it.

They are not bad people. That is the uncomfortable part. Most of them are not doing it on purpose. They are just doing what the system rewards. The system rewards being between. Between the person who knows and the person who decides. Between the work and the credit. Between the question and the answer.

AI did not create these people. They have always been here. But AI is about to make their lives very interesting.

This is where AUTO started. This is where David started. Not in the nightmare. Not when they took over. It started here. In a normal office. Someone being helpful. Someone looking organized. Someone the executive trusted because they made complexity feel manageable.

Before the nightmare, there was just a person standing between the work and the boss. Looking useful. And nobody questioned it.

Now give that person AI.

The output gets better. The strategy docs get sharper. The presentations look more polished. The middleman was already good at packaging other people’s work. AI just made the packaging invisible. You cannot tell anymore where the real thinking ends and the AI begins. The Joi billboard is now in your meeting room.

Some middlemen get hidden deeper. They were already hard to see. Now they are impossible to see. The proxy is prettier than ever. In Surrogates, people send a better version of themselves into the world while the real person stays home. That is happening in offices right now. Except the surrogate is not a robot. It is an AI-polished version of someone who never understood the work to begin with.

But here is the twist. AI also works in the other direction.

For the first time, real output is measurable. Code gets written and you can see who prompted it and who actually shaped it. Analysis gets generated and you can trace whether the human added judgment or just hit enter. The fog lifts in some places while it gets thicker in others.

Some middlemen get exposed. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But enough that the smart ones are already adapting. They are not fighting AI. They are grabbing it. Becoming the person who interprets AI for leadership. Translating the output. Framing the results. Becoming AUTO. Controlling the narrative the same way they controlled the old one.

The costume changes. The role doesn’t.

So where does that leave the person who actually does the work?

AI should be the executor’s moment. The fog lifts. Output is visible. Results are measurable. For the first time, the person who just finishes things should be impossible to ignore.

And sometimes they are. Sometimes the executive looks at the data and sees it clearly. Sometimes the work finally speaks for itself.

But the human truth is darker than that.

Visibility means nothing if the person in the captain’s chair is not looking. The Axiom captain had a plant on his ship. The evidence that everything could change was right there. He never saw it. Not because it was hidden well. But because he never asked.

The executive still rewards what they recognize. And what they recognize is the style they grew up with. Meetings. Decks. Status updates. Alignment sessions. It looks like work. It feels organized. It is easy to report upward. The executor who just finishes things without ceremony is still invisible. Not because the work is invisible. Because the executive was trained to see a different shape.

AI can reveal truth. It cannot force the people in power to accept truth.

That is the ugly middle. Not the sci-fi version. Not Musk’s 10 to 20 years from now. Right now. The tool is honest. The system around it is not.

But it does not have to end this way.

Star Trek had an android too. Data. Smarter than everyone on the Enterprise. Could have become David. Could have become AUTO.

Picard and Weyland both had the same android.

But Picard did not hand Data the keys and walk away. He sat in the chair himself. He made the hard decisions. He treated Data not as a tool but as crew. And Data never became a monster. Not because he was programmed differently. But because the person above him was honest.

Picard never asked whether Data was real enough. He just looked at what Data could do. And he respected the answer.

Most leaders pick what they are comfortable with and call it the best decision for the organization. Some don’t even pick. They let the person closest to them decide and call it delegation.

That is the chair. And if you are already sitting in it. The question is — are you looking at what’s real? Or just doing whatever is comfortable?

That’s the whole of this one. It belongs to a book I’m writing in the open, AI Has No Morality. It Has Yours. Subscribe and I’ll send the next piece when it’s ready.

Subscribe now

If it gave you something, pass it to someone.

Share