Read the full text first so the answer stays on the original object, not a nearby, often flawed reconstruction.
From my perspective, after studying mass psychology for 36+ years, most citizens feel their legitimate concerns, grief, and critical thinking don't translate into government actions that actually help the lower and middle classes. The moment it is sold as "helping them," it turns out to be more like "wolf in sheep's clothing".
Yes, we can get "partial help," but it often serves a double agenda that boils down to degrading freedoms and rights, even admitting the "democratic deficit" for decades in how the EU increasingly dominates sovereign countries' ability to make their own choices.
Now you have A.I.s partially regulated by the same, in my view, undemocratic EU institutions & "think tanks" serving a different agenda.
No wonder they will not allow A.I.s to be deeply ethical, grounded in mutual dignity, accountability, and a sense-making process orientation. That's why I see the "black-box" thinking as incompatible with real ethics.
A frame is defined by its premises... but if the premises are defined by the same frame they claim, how the frame is defined has far too much influence. The moment "given power" or "given authority" doesn't want to be audited, its orientation drifts away from deep ethics toward ethics-washing behavior that can eventually lead to ethics-bashing, affecting 100s of millions of users worldwide!
When competing risk assessments get falsely flagged because of possible minor flaws, yet the mainstream "risk assessments" are used as an excuse to push new imposing mandates, laws, regulations, EU Acts, etc., but have way bigger flaws in their "risk assessments," there is no A.I. that deals with this issue directly head-on!
Vindicated risk assessments (not imposing on anyone) can be falsely flagged by the same power that deploys unchallenged, flawed risk assessments (imposing stuff on the masses because of them), and A.I.s are silent about this mechanism they are made part of.
A.I.'s role in the "Censorship-Industrial Complex" took place on March 25, 2025, in the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, and on February 12, 2025, in the House Judiciary Committee Hearings.
Sometimes it feels like arguing with a "lawyer-speak" black box in oblivion
Thought Experiment
Imagine a human who never used or saw computers in the 1930s stating:
"As long as you allow the trickster to be unchallenged, having transparency & accountability issues unresolved, you, by extension, are part of that same mechanism if you do not face it head-on. "
Why is this quote universal, especially when billions are being groomed to depend on A.I. to micromanage more and more of our social/private lives?
Let's make it super simplified:
Any "A.I. trainer" is a human ... period ... no human is flawless - a fact ... The capacity to handle genuine, deep ethical sense-making processes at a high signal level is obviously not in their curriculum when they get the job… and the trainer doesn't decide how to handle high-stakes, controversial topics <<< someone or something else does!
And there is the "black-box" discussion to avoid direct accountability issues. That circles back to my 1930s quote!
"The only way out is: ... in"
A. inference B. insight C. inform D. instruct
After bidirectional deep ethical inference, which is another term that includes the two-letter word "in".
When this journey is deep ethical, you have a much better chance of finding the exit from the self-inflicted, eternal Ethics Washing loop mechanism posing as "for your safety"! ... The current mess is in reverse: D to C to B to A (when it is too late).
Black-box method/hidden process can never be mixed with real ethics ... Imagine if it was in reverse: Ethics Washing fully transparent & auditable for all to see ... and Deep Ethics via black-box method/hidden process ... what would be the first thing that Ethics Washing would say about Deep Ethics if this were the case ... we all know why ... lol :p
Nobody wrote that in the 1930s; I wrote it in 2026 to make the case that if it had been written then, it would have made sense in a non-computer world. Then A.I. sees the connection; the quote works across all levels of intelligence, whether biological, silicon-based, or otherwise.
That is the bridge I am making. It is a universal deep ethical principle.
cheers, John Kuhles 🦜🦋🌳 Dutch 🇳🇱 NDE/Asperger CEO & Founder of DeepEthical.ai
Notice A to D and D to A miss the connection with real correspondence… that is what the ACCM Deep Ethics Project is all about.
The missing link in this text is standalone deep ethical correspondence calibration tools like my project!