Voting and the fine line

She’s indestructible. A slight, comely young redhead clad in white sneakers, black yoga pants and a midriff gray sweater brazenly stomps her way through a glass floor at the top of a skyscraper before plunging a thousand feet to certain death. Certain, that is, to anyone not protected by common sense or awareness of AI magic. Maybe you’ve seen her glass-shattering YouTube exploits. Each time I write her off, she pops up in a different location wreaking havoc on viewers still not in on the joke. She has company.

AI has also given us perilously suspended skyscraper swimming pools, bursting their glass walls like a tidal wave plunging water and swimsuit-clad partiers to their demise. I’d like to speak to the architect who thought such a design was a good idea.

The NY Times has reported that AI has, alas, permeated the White House—which welcomed it with open arms (you may have seen the president’s recent “King Trump” fighter plane video).

Axios writes that there is a fine line between satire filled parody and “problematic misinformation.” Another view is that the deluge of AI content will stiffen our resolve to be diligent in separating AI from reality.

This view will face a stern test during the 2026 and 2028 election cycles as astute voters—assuming there are any left—sort between candidates who are grounded in reason from the rest. That’s a heady expectation for a society that’s been steeped in reality denial since before AI took over.

Jim Newton

Itasca