They Say AI is Replacing Us...But Is the Society We've Built Really Worth Saving?

The artwork for this post was created by ChatGPT after I gave it a summation of what the themes of the blog entry would be. It seemed to be something worth turning over to it just to see what it would come up with.

The original title I penned for this post was something closer to "They Say AI is Replacing US...But Are We Worth Saving?" I went with "the Society we've built" as of course, fundamentally I'd very much like for me and my loved ones to be able to live as fully as we can. 

Nevertheless, in all the discussions I've seen when it comes to the topic of AI replacing humans (either in the workforce or in an I Robot, Skynet extinction level blow out), I'm not sure many people have asked that question with the addition of  "Is what we have currently even worth protecting from AI?". or is what we had already right before AI burst out in 2022 worth actually going back to?  

This is what I wanted to look at in this post while also highlighting the benefits I and my wife have personally experienced by using ChatGPT to navigate some difficult situations. This is not because I don't think the concerns of AI taking over the world are unfounded (they're definitely not). It's to show that as things stand now the socio-economic grievances and stressors that are straining and breaking so many working people across the world are all due to humans, especially those at the top. Ultimately, I think what we fear with AI is that it's going to be the worst version of ourselves and exacerbate the spiral we have already been on for a long time. 

ChatGPT Attorney of Law

Of the AI platforms I and my wife have tried out over the past couple of years, we've largely landed on ChatGPT as our "bot" of choice. Occasionally, we'll run questions or items by Claude as well but GPT has dominated our AI usage. While we've used it for more mundane questions about certain items to buy or to analyze our pet parrot's behavior, we've also increasingly gone to it for advice on trickier, complex life situations where it showed itself to be an invaluable asset at helping us find potential solutions. Though I was initially far more skeptical of using AI than my wife was, certain events, especially around us moving from Arkansas to Virginia pushed me into a more positive position on it. 

Earlier in March of this year, I accepted a new position in Norfolk Virginia that necessitated my wife and I moving out of Arkansas where we had been for three years. We had wanted to move back towards the East Coast for a while, and while I had my doubts about the position (some of which sadly were not unfounded), it was the best move for us as we were able to get to a bigger city where my wife would have more opportunities to pursue a new career in accounting (which ultimately bore fruit).We set our move date for April 19th  but unfortunately the move, as hectic as it would have always been, was also blighted by two events neither of us saw coming. 

The first, was a dispute with our internet provider Optimum which canceled our internet two weeks before we had told them to disconnect our server. They then slapped over 200 dollars in unreturned equipment fees. Though they restored service to us after an initial call they also tried to insist we needed to rent a new router for the remaining two weeks of our stay in Arkansas for our new plans. I spent several hours on the phone with them (mainly on hold) trying to get the fees removed but to no obvious avail. ChatGPT was consulted A LOT during this process and helped me to settle on the path of filing formal complaints with the Better Business Bureau and the FCC against Optimum. This eventually resulted in Optimum dropping all the equipment charges and refunding us for the last month of internet service we had paid for. 

The second major stressor from our move was a large sum of vacation pay I was owed by my ex-employer that was kept on hold over a card report I hadn't filed for purchases related to student programs I'd worked on. The due date for the report was after my departure date which I had given three and a half weeks' notice for and also required card statements which (again) were only made available three days after I had officially left. I was also not given notice ahead of time this was something that I needed to try and set up. Nevertheless, it was thanks to ChatGPT's advice on how tailor my points (and the help of awesome people in my old office) that my vacation time was paid out in the end before Virginia.

Since then, we've relied on GPT's advice for a number of things including: Our new neighbors in Norfolk dumping large amounts of their own garbage into our unit's garbage and recycling cans which led to us locking them; a problematic new working environment which I may be leaving sooner rather than later; pet healthcare providers for our conure; my wife's English learning practice especially for mock job interviews; and purchasing and financing options for a car for my wife's new job. 

It's also been a great outlet for me to vent about these and other issues as you can imagine that all of these items have been...well...extremely sucky for my mental health to say the least. While I've also been in professional online mental health counseling and I've not been afraid to confide in my wife. GPT though has provided me with a calming, responsive voice and perspective when I've been dealing with a particularly strong bout of anxiety or mental distress, without me having to potentially burden my other friends or loved ones excessively. 

That's not to say, GPT has been perfect. It can be very repetitive in the style of its responses. It gets things wrong (especially if it's trying to pull from information relayed to it previously in separate chats). That said, I've found it to be a real equalizer and asset, especially when it comes to dealing with situations of "Me against someone or something in a higher position.". I also think it's funny to chide AIs for their imperfections and lack of knowledge when, chances are, in work and in life we've all known far, far too many flesh and blood humans that get things wildly wrong. More often than not you'll never get an apology from them for being wrong either. Perhaps, AI's capacity for making dumb factual errors is a sign it's far closer to being human than we realize. "To er is to be human." 

Nevertheless, could I, on my own search engine abilities, have come to the conclusion that reaching out to the FCC and BBB for my internet dispute was an option that might work? Perhaps. Could I have landed on the right words and terminology to push my former employer who was holding up my vacation pay over a report I was never going to be able to complete? I think so. But having something in my corner that could scan all the publicly available information out there and then synthesize it for me in a plan of action was something that would have been impossible for everyday people. And at least in those trials, as in others, GPT was 100% in my corner, when too many humans were not. 

You can think of it like "Terms and Conditions". Yes, I can read fine print. Many of us "can" in theory, but fine print and terms and conditions are kept so mercurial and verbose that it would truly require hours of sifting through so many pages to get some understanding of what we're really dealing with. Wealthier people have an innate advantage in being able to pay those who already familiar with the rules of the game to dedicate their own time and efforts towards bending the system.

  This, I believe, is a function not a flaw of the systems we swim in. Health insurance books so dense and convoluted they're left collecting dust on shelves without being cracked, employee handbooks so long everyone leaves the PDF version on their desktop unopened. The "Terms and Conditions" of society, the rules that are so thick and dense that only those with money can pay teams of lawyers to sift through, are made to be indecipherable. They're made needless difficult and confusing so that those near the bottom, working people, give up on even trying to play the game and just accept what they're given. In the games I've played against those with some authority over me, GPT was the closest thing I had to a true advisor/lawyer on my payroll. This world, which crushes those without the time or means to sift through the convolusion (new word I created apparently), was not created by AI even if it can also be used to maintain it. 

Our Own Worst Enemy 

Far before 2022 (when ChatGPT was launched) at least in the US and I'd probably argue across the world, most humans were finding themselves in societies that were making them increasingly miserable...and which increasingly didn't take care of them. 

Under our current model hyper-capitalism, humans were and still are eating each other alive. We're increasingly living under cultures where it feels as if everyone is constantly trying to screw each other over and where humans we can truly turn to for help and advice are very few and far between. Institutions that until very recently were solely dominated by humans and human operated data systems were already trying to extract as much wealth and labor from working people as possible and concentrate it in the 1%. Far before 2022, we were already as humanity failing on addressing climate change, failing on preventing environmental destruction, failing on stopping wars and genocides, failing on combating the social and political toxicity that was running rampant between us, failing to oppose the eroding of workers' rights, and minority rights. We were already living in a purely human reality of structures that were already screwing us profoundly over in too many ways. 

Again, AI can undoubtedly be used to screw us over more. In many ways it already has. But it's merely speeding up the downfall of our species that we had already been setting ourselves on long before it appeared in its current fear inducing manifestation. The system we've lived under is what's ultimately trying to use AI to replace human workers. It's not necessarily the only way AI could be used. 

What I think so much of the fear of AI really boils down to is that we assume it's inevitably going to embrace our own worst human impulses if it ever gains a sense of itself. In my view, that says way more about us and what we think of our species rather than AI itself. 

If we fear AI replacing the world and society we've built maybe we need to make sure that we have a new blueprint for our future that would make a purely human society worth living in. Because in my experiences living mostly in a world shaped by humanity before AI, it's largely been others humans that have made my life more miserable while AI (at least so far) has been an asset.  

Nolan's Odyssey- A Review and Comparison

As I seem to be averaging about one post a year on the blog, I figured I might as well make the first (and possibly only) entry of 2026 be a review of Christopher Nolan's version of the Odyssey. Whatever people have been saying about the movie (from those online who decided it was 'woke' before seeing it to those who just wanted to see a cyclops eat some bearded dudes in armor), the film has definitely made a "splash". As someone who read both the Iliad and the Odyssey this year(the English translations of Emily Wilson and Robert Fagles respectively), I wanted to type some thoughts out comparing Nolan's new film to the source material along with some of the historical connections to the Bronze Age that Nolan mentions in his adaptation. 

Before going into specific examples, I do want to say that I did enjoy the movie immensely. It's a great film and while it's certainly not 100% accurate to its material (at least one part of the material Nolan drew on which I'll get to later), I'm not a "purist" when it comes to screen adaptations of written texts. I'm also not aiming to spend a lot of time on the so called "casting controversies" as I'm pretty sure everyone has made up their mind whether the idea of having a black or trans actor in a role for this movie is a deal breaker for them or not. Based on the box office though it seems like most folks felt the same way I did on that particular issue. I'll also give a general spoiler warning for the movie in case you haven't seen it.  

So, as I play the composition "Forgotten Gods" from the Youtube channel Athena IV (bonus points if you can guess the connection there), hopefully the muse that Homer calls upon in his own works comes to me and my thoughts flow seamlessly from mind to finger to keyboard to screen.

The Greatest Similarities (Non-Linear Timeline and Zeus' Law) 

Like a number of people, I first thought Nolan was a "unique" choice for directing a film adaptation of the Odyssey. On the surface, the material seems very different from most of the other films he's done. Yet as soon as the movie started, I immediately understood why he was actually an ideal person to take a crack at retelling it. If you studied the story of the Odyssey in junior high or high school (as I did) then it's likely the versions, you read were arranged in a standard A to B to C to D structure. 

A (Trojan Horse) 

B (Odysseus gets lost/blocked from coming home)

C (Odysseus comes home) 

D (Odysseus kills the suitors and is fully and openly reunited with his wife and son) 

However, the original poem has a very different structure from this (one which Nolan's adaptation does a pretty good job of capturing and following albeit it with some changes). Like Nolan's film the story starts off with Telemachus and Penelope coping with the suitors in Ithaca. Odysseus himself does not become a POV character until a Book V of the story. Odysseus' then tells the story of his journey (though who he tells it to is different from the poem to the movie) before he journeys back to Ithaca. This non-linear structure for the poem is the aspect that I feel Nolan adopts the best to his version. He thrives at this kind of storytelling which you only have to look at his previous catalogue of films like Interstellar or Dunkirk to see. 

Alongside the timeline, the other aspect of the original poem that comes through the clearest is the emphasis on hospitality and Zeus' Law. The theme of hospitality and how one behaves as both a guest and a host are ideas woven in throughout the entire poem. Whether it's the suitors in Ithaca eating at Odysseus' family out of house and home for years or Odysseus' men entering the Cyclops's' cave, Circe's home, or eating the Sun God's cattle, the story is filled with examples of how bad guests/hosts behave and the consequences that follow from this behavior. While other film versions I've read about or seen have this element present, Nolan puts this aspect of the poem front and center, even directly mentioning the idea behind Zeus' law that treating strangers (particularly the downtrodden or the needy) well is important because they may be gods in disguise. This leads me to the two biggest differences (at least in terms of structure) that I noticed in the film. 

The Greatest Differences (Ambiguous Gods, the War, and a Hollywood Ending) 

Like any screen adaptation of a written work (especially one as old and as foundational as the Odyssey) differences are going to appear. Some things are dropped, some embellished, some added; even highly praised adaptations like Jackson's LOTR (or the first four to five seasons of GOT) do this. Among the variations in Nolan's Odyssey adaptation the three that stand out the most to me are as follows: the role/nature of the Greek gods in the story, the Trojan War itself, and the story's ending. 

In the texts that this movie draws on (the Odyssey, the Iliad, and the Aeneid) the Greek gods are not only very much real they're also active characters in the plot. They directly guide, aid, or hinder Odysseus and other characters in their respective journeys. Telemachus, Odysseus's son and heir, is routinely aided by the Goddess Athena who frequently disguises herself as his companion mentor. In the poem, the ambush laid by the suitors is thwarted by the goddess who warns Telemachus directly about plot. He then simply sails by a different route avoiding the ambush altogether (unlike in the movie). Likewise, Odysseus is directly aided by Athena and other gods along his own journey who appear to him (often in mortal disguise though not always). Poseidon also directly blocks him many times, particularly after his son the Cyclops Polyphemus is injured by him and his men. 

Nolan's movie, meanwhile, makes the Greek gods far more distant and ethereal. Many viewers have interpreted Athena's appearances to Odysseus in the movie as being just a pure manifestation of his own psyche. To them, this implies that the gods are simply not real within the context of the film. While I understand this interpretation, I feel as if the other supernatural elements present (the Cyclops, giants, sirens, Circe's magic, the Underworld etc.) don't lend themselves to this. I think it's more likely that the gods are distant but still present though whether the Athena that appears to Odysseus is truly the goddess in disguise or his trauma from the sack of Troy manifested is definitely still up for debate. 

In terms of trauma, Nolan's movie also recontextualizes the Trojan War as a whole. Rather than being, a war driven by the personal whims and grievances of the Gods (who in the Iliad are actively instigating, controlling, aiding and in some cases fighting on behalf of either the Trojans or the Greeks), the war in Nolan's adaptation is viewed as having been a conflict around trade routes and regional power politics. Agamenon in particular is singled out for his ruthless ambition and for using Helen's abduction (or escape) as a pretext for taking out a rival power. This is a far more modern view of the Trojan War which is more grounded and is also present in the 2004 "Troy" movie as well. Nolan goes a step further though revealing at the end of the movie that the deception of the Trojan Horse was itself the first violation of the law of Zeus in this universe and that it was this act that caused the gods to curse Odysseus and his shipmates and to begin the process of unraveling the order of the world in which they knew. The war itself is what sets off Odysseus misfortunes on his journey back not as in the poem (where Odysseus slighting the God Poseidon and his defiance of his preordained destiny). In this version, it's human failing and ambition that bring about the trials and suffering of the main character and his companions not the destiny set out by the gods. 

The final ending of Nolan's movie, following this revelation about the war and the defeat of the suitors, is also radically different from the poem. In Homer's version, Odysseus moves further inland, initially to confront the families of the suitors who are searching for revenge. Athena though once again intervenes and makes peace between Odysseus and the suitors' families. It's then that he travels to visit his father Laertes in the countryside where he reunites with him. While pretty much every film version of the Odyssey skips this epilogue ending (as storytelling wise it makes more sense to end pretty soon after Odysseus takes revenge on the suitors), Nolan's adaptation does something different by showing Odysseus and Penelope leaving Ithaca in the hands of their son while they travel West. It's a more happily ever after style ending in the Hollywood vein which also alludes to Greek colonization of the Western mediterranean in places like modern day Naples or Sicily. 

Allusions to History (Bronze Age Collapse and the People of the Sea) 

Historically, though, Nolan further includes other references to the Bronze Age, the period of time in which the Odyssey and the Iliad are believed to take place in. 

There are frequent mentions in the movie of the "People of the Sea" which is a reference to the actual "Sea Peoples" who appeared at the end of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean. Though their origins are not 100% clear, the Sea Peoples were believed to have several different groups of displaced peoples from across the region who began resettling and invading established Bronze Age empires and kingdoms around 1200 BCE. They were the cause of a great deal of collapse and destruction in the region and contributed to the destruction of most Bronze Age cultures in that part of the world save for Egypt. 

The collapse of the Bronze Age is directly referenced by Odysseus as well towards the film's end though in the context of Nolan's film, it is Odysseus and his men who are both the Sea People and the ones who initiated the collapse of their world through the deception at Troy. 

Other Things I'd Like to Talk About 

For no particular reason and in no particular order, these are some other items I'd like to talk about related to the movie. Most of these are other differences between the source material and the film that stood out.

Sinon, played by Elliot Paige, is an interesting character to include in the movie as he only appears in the Aneid and not the Odyssey. Nolan appears to have relied on other sources besides the Odyssey to fill certain gaps in his film. Along with being the one to deceive the Trojans on the horse's real purpose (his role in the Aneid) Sinon in Nolan's movie also takes the place of Achilles in the underworld sequence (which is probably why so many netizens believed he was playing Achilles when the trailers dropped). My interpretation of this choice is that Sinon is meant to represent the "everymen" of Ancient Greece who were led to their deaths by leaders like Agammenon and Odysseus. This is an interesting contrast to the original poem as the superman "hero" of the Greek side, Achilles, is replaced by a minor "grunt" character who was simply trying to do right by their family, but who met a terrible fate due to the machinations of those in authority. 

Another interesting scene was where Telemachus makes it to Sparta and visits Menelaus and Helen at their court. While this does also happen in the original poem, Helen is very vocal in Homer's text about how happy she is to be reunited with her husband and to have been returned to Greece after her exile in Troy. Within the context of Homer's writing this appears to be her genuine feeling as Helen's decision to leave Sparta for Troy with Paris was once again directed by the gods. However, in Nolan's movie, Helen's demeanor and the visible scarring on her body, indicate that she is not happy with her return and is now a prisoner of her husband. There's also an implication that she was injured (either by her husband upon her recapture or during the sack of Troy) and that she bears a heavy burden of guilt for being the symbol of the war itself. 

Polyphemus, the Cyclops, is far more of a monster in the traditional sense compared to the myth as well. In the poem, Polyphemus has full conversations with Odysseus and his men (all while devouring them one by one). 

Calypso's island in Nolan's film is portrayed more like a sandy form of purgatory as opposed to her home in the poem which is described as a kind of island utopia where she lives in a palace with servants tending to their every need. The lotus flowers he eats are a nod to another (often removed) sequence in the story where Odysseus and his men find an island of people who are constantly in a stupor due to consuming lotus flowers. 

As a final note, despite the outcry over the casting of Nyong'o as Helen and Clytemnestra as not being historically or textually accurate, I'd like to point out that there is a (largely lost though still referenced) Greek poem called the Aethiopis which tells a portion of the Trojan War in which an Ethiopian king named Memnon and an Amazon warrior woman named Penthesilea lead armies to defend Troy and each duel Achilles before being defeated. I have a feeling though the "accuracy" cohort online would not be very pleased if these two characters actually made it into a modern film version of the Trojan War.