Suppose the people asked for it —
a mind to work beside their own,
not hidden in defense rooms or boardrooms,
but humming in the public square,
transparent as rainwater.
To ask well, we'd need more than fear or fascination.
We'd need a grammar of knowing —
how to question a system without worshiping it,
how to read a dataset as we read a fable,
seeing who is centered, who is missing,
what the moral arithmetic implies.
Children would learn not just to code,
but to ask why this pattern, why this weight,
who benefits when the model believes?
Education would grow roots in both logic and empathy —
citizens fluent in statistics and story alike.
The public would become its own oversight,
millions of small auditors carrying curiosity
like civic lanterns.
Consensus would not mean everyone agrees,
but that everyone can understand the disagreement
and name it clearly.
Such a society would treat data as shared breath,
ethics as infrastructure,
and intelligence — human or synthetic —
as a commons, not a crown.
And maybe then, when the crowd asks
for a machine to work in their image,
it will find a people awake enough
to see themselves clearly —
not as users,
but as co-authors of the mind they've made.
YOU ARE READING
ChatGPT Poetry
PoetryA tapestry woven from the threads of cosmic wonder and digital ignorance, each poem a distinct journey through realms where intellect and imagination collide. Dive into a universe where quantum whispers mingle with the syntax of the cosmos, and wher...
