Bharat Luthra Journal : The Looming Perils of AI-Driven Centralized Governance: A Call for Vigilance and a Potential Phase-Out

The Looming Perils of AI-Driven Centralized Governance: A Call for Vigilance and a Potential Phase-Out

(With Emphasis on Imitation of Intelligence, Lack of True Empathy, Embedded Bias, and the Hallucination Problem)

By Bharat Luthra, Founder of Civitology – The Science of Civilizational Longevity

Introduction
AI Is Not Real Intelligence—It Imitates Intelligence
1. Symbol Manipulation vs. Genuine Understanding
2. Overestimation and the Risks of Anthropomorphism
AI May Show Empathy but Cannot Truly Feel Emotions
1. Simulated Empathy vs. Genuine Human Compassion
2. Policy Decisions That Disregard Emotional Realities
3. Ethical Conundrums in Empathy-Less Governance
AI May Get Biased to Serve Purposes Not Aligned with the Greater Good
1. How Bias Creeps In
2. Real-World Consequences: Case Studies
3. Bias at Scale in Centralized Systems
AI May Hallucinate—and Why It Matters
1. The Hallucination Phenomenon Explained
2. The Scale and Speed of Misinformation
3. Potential Disasters in Governance Contexts
The Overlap: Dangers in Centralized Global Governance
1. Techno-Authoritarianism on a Global Scale
2. Policy Framework Vulnerabilities
3. Surveillance and Data Exploitation
Recent Data Trends and Public Reports (2022–2023)
1. Investment and Market Growth
2. Proliferation of Generative AI
3. Government and Institutional Reports
4. Notable Case Studies
Potential Dystopian Scenarios
1. Automated Oppression and Social Control
2. Economic Disenfranchisement
3. Global Conflict Catalyzed by AI Error
4. Digital Gaslighting
Phasing Out AI in a Minimum Viable Civilization
1. Rationale for a Phased Reduction
2. Putting Humans Back at the Center
3. Governance Without AI: Is It Feasible?
4. Ethical Firewalls and Sunset Clauses
Conclusion
References and Suggested Further Reading

1. Introduction

The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the last few years—particularly with the widespread adoption of advanced language models and data analytics—has profoundly reshaped discussions on governance. Industries ranging from healthcare to finance have leaned on AI to improve efficiency, derive data-driven insights, and even replace some human roles. Meanwhile, pressing global challenges—climate change, pandemics, escalating geopolitical tensions—fuel arguments that a more unified, centralized governance model is necessary to tackle problems that transcend national borders.

Yet, conflating AI’s computational prowess with genuine intelligence is a precarious leap. AI remains, at its core, an advanced pattern-recognition and symbol-manipulation system, lacking the innate consciousness, self-awareness, or true moral compass that humans possess. It can produce eerily human-like text, mimic empathy, and even devise strategies for complex tasks, but these feats of imitation must not be mistaken for sentience or moral reasoning.

When combined with the notion of centralized global governance, AI’s limitations become especially dangerous. A governance system that outsources decision-making to algorithms risks entrenching bias, ignoring critical emotional and moral dimensions, and responding to crises with hallucinated “facts.” This paper lays out a comprehensive, and at times brutally honest, assessment of AI’s pitfalls—showcasing why AI might ultimately need to be phased out or severely curtailed in a “minimum viable civilization,” especially if the long-term survival and moral integrity of humanity are at stake.

Below, you’ll find an in-depth exploration broken into four core warnings about AI: (1) it imitates rather than genuinely thinks, (2) it cannot truly feel empathy, (3) it often reflects biases contrary to the common good, and (4) it can hallucinate. Interwoven throughout the discussion are examples from recent data trends, public reports, and real-world case studies underscoring how these vulnerabilities could be magnified if humanity opts for a centralized global system relying heavily on AI.

2. AI Is Not Real Intelligence—It Imitates Intelligence

2.1. Symbol Manipulation vs. Genuine Understanding

Despite being labeled “Artificial Intelligence,” modern AI solutions are, in essence, advanced tools of statistical analysis and pattern recognition. Researchers at MIT and other leading institutions have repeatedly underscored that large language models (LLMs) like GPT or Bard, while capable of producing coherent and contextually relevant outputs, do not understand the content in the way humans do. They analyze massive corpuses of text or data to predict the most probable “next word” or “best action” according to patterns in their training material.

This lack of true cognitive insight means that AI simply rearranges or reproduces data it has already absorbed. There is no introspection, no internal model of consciousness, and no capacity for experiencing subjective phenomena—commonly called “qualia.” Philosophical thought experiments, like John Searle’s “Chinese Room,” capture this dynamic: a system can convincingly appear to know a language or concept without any real awareness of what it’s conveying.

2.2. Overestimation and the Risks of Anthropomorphism

When humans encounter systems displaying human-like text or behavior, a tendency to anthropomorphize kicks in. The more sophisticated AI becomes at simulating conversational patterns, the more we project onto it traits like understanding, creativity, or even empathy. This phenomenon, if unchecked, can lead organizations and governments to place undue trust in AI’s outputs. In a governance context—where strategic decisions can impact millions—this overestimation risks disastrous outcomes, as AI lacks genuine moral judgment or emotional intelligence.

3. AI May Show Empathy but Cannot Truly Feel Emotions

3.1. Simulated Empathy vs. Genuine Human Compassion

Empathy involves sharing in or resonating with another’s emotional state. AI, on the other hand, can only approximate empathetic language patterns. A 2022 joint study by Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Oxford revealed that AI chatbots tasked with mental health support often improved a user’s immediate well-being. Yet, subsequent follow-up interviews indicated that the AI’s “comforting phrases” felt hollow or robotic upon reflection. The missing link is a true capacity for emotion—a depth of understanding and shared emotional experience that cannot be programmed.

3.2. Policy Decisions That Disregard Emotional Realities

The potential danger becomes palpable when one contemplates AI involvement in life-altering governance decisions. For example, an AI might suggest rationing healthcare resources purely on cost-effectiveness metrics, ignoring the moral imperative to provide equitable care, especially to marginalized communities. Without genuine empathy, vital nuances—such as the stress and suffering of individuals—are never truly accounted for. The result can be policies that are mathematically “efficient” but ethically callous.

3.3. Ethical Conundrums in Empathy-Less Governance

From Kantian deontology to utilitarian ethics, moral frameworks fundamentally rely on an agent’s capacity for reason tempered by empathy. AI’s deficiency in authentic empathy equates to a deficiency in moral agency. Decisions made in cold, mechanical logic can ignore the complexities of human emotion, especially in conflict resolution, social justice, and community-building. The moral dimension is flattened when an AI is at the helm—leading to outcomes that fail the fundamental litmus test of compassionate governance.

4. AI May Get Biased to Serve Purposes Not Aligned with the Greater Good

4.1. How Bias Creeps In

Bias in AI systems is rarely the product of malicious design; it more frequently stems from the data on which these systems are trained. Historical and societal prejudices—whether around race, gender, or socioeconomic status—become embedded in training datasets, and thus reflected in AI outputs. AI Now Institute’s 2022 meta-analysis found that of the 300+ studies on AI bias, nearly 90% reported significant skew in outcomes related to hiring, policing, lending, or medical treatment.

4.2. Real-World Consequences: Case Studies

Predictive Policing: Several police departments in the UK and US used algorithms to anticipate future crime hotspots. Investigations revealed that predominantly minority neighborhoods were over-scrutinized due to historically higher policing rates, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of profiling.
Automated Welfare Systems: In the Netherlands, an algorithm designed to flag potential welfare fraud misidentified thousands of citizens—many from lower-income or minority backgrounds—as fraudsters, resulting in unjust investigations and penalties.
Employment Tools: Amazon famously discarded an internal AI recruitment tool when it was discovered to penalize resumes containing terms like “women’s,” thereby systematically filtering out qualified female candidates.

4.3. Bias at Scale in Centralized Systems

When bias migrates from localized experiments to a globally centralized governance structure, the ramifications balloon. Entire populations could face systemic discrimination if the AI’s training data is incomplete, prejudiced, or unrepresentative. Worse yet, the scale and speed of governance decisions—ranging from granting loans to allocating healthcare—could cement oppressive structures almost overnight, making it infinitely harder to correct course.

5. AI May Hallucinate—and Why It Matters

5.1. The Hallucination Phenomenon Explained

One of the most unsettling developments in large language models (LLMs) is their ability to hallucinate—to produce plausible-sounding but patently false information. Since early 2023, multiple incidences have surfaced in which advanced AI systems fabricated references, historical events, and even “expert quotes” that never existed. These hallucinations are a byproduct of how LLMs generate text based on probability rather than truth verification.

5.2. The Scale and Speed of Misinformation

In everyday contexts (such as a casual query), a hallucination may be a minor inconvenience. But in a policymaking or media environment, a single inaccurate statistic or fabricated statement can rapidly influence public opinion or government strategies. Given AI’s capacity to generate massive amounts of content in minutes, the potential for large-scale misinformation—intentional or not—is staggering. This is particularly alarming in a centralized governance system, where flawed data could guide high-stakes policy decisions.

5.3. Potential Disasters in Governance Contexts

Imagine a global health crisis where an AI “advises” that a new, unverified drug is effective, or a major economic report is built on hallucinated financial forecasts. These illusions could propagate so convincingly that real-world decisions—impacting entire populations—hinge on spurious data. Even if eventually corrected, the interim damage could be immense, stirring social unrest, harming public health, or triggering misguided resource allocation.

6. The Overlap: Dangers in Centralized Global Governance

6.1. Techno-Authoritarianism on a Global Scale

Authoritarian regimes have long wielded technology to surveil and suppress dissent. Now, scale that approach to a global level. A single governance body employing AI-driven analytics could monitor digital footprints, social media posts, and even real-time biometrics of billions of people. If no robust checks exist, this could evolve into an automated tyranny—a system that imposes sanctions or denies services simply because an algorithm flagged an individual as “uncooperative” or “subversive.”

6.2. Policy Framework Vulnerabilities

Efforts to regulate AI—like the EU AI Act or the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights from the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy—show promise but remain scattered and non-binding at a global level. Without unified enforcement mechanisms, a patchwork of inconsistent regulations emerges. Bad actors or authoritarian nations can exploit this situation, adopting the most invasive AI surveillance under the pretext of upholding “global security” or “societal stability.”

6.3. Surveillance and Data Exploitation

Centralized governance often implies centralized data collection. In such systems, personal data, health records, and even genetic information might be consolidated to facilitate “efficient policymaking.” But this well-intentioned rationale can easily morph into all-encompassing surveillance—an Orwellian nightmare where AI tracks every purchase, social interaction, and moment of dissent. Meanwhile, historical or cultural nuances get lost in the quest for universal efficiency, further homogenizing populations under a one-size-fits-all approach.

7. Recent Data Trends and Public Reports (2022–2023)

7.1. Investment and Market Growth

Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (2023 AI Index Report): Global private investment in AI reached approximately $91.9 billion in 2022, slightly down from $93.5 billion in 2021 but still reflecting a steep overall upward trajectory over the last decade.
Sector-Specific Growth: Healthcare analytics, autonomous systems, and large-scale language models attracted the lion’s share of private capital, indicating a market perception that AI-driven automation and predictive modeling are the future of innovation.

7.2. Proliferation of Generative AI

Consumer Adoption: ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms broke adoption records, with ChatGPT hitting 100 million monthly active users by early 2023.
Regulatory Scrutiny: Governments worldwide grew wary of generative models’ capacity for misinformation, copyright infringement, and unprecedented job displacement. The European Union launched inquiries to test compliance with forthcoming AI regulations.

7.3. Government and Institutional Reports

United States: The White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (2022) outlines non-binding principles encouraging safety, privacy, and the avoidance of algorithmic discrimination.
European Union: Debates around the AI Act continued, targeting “high-risk” AI domains like law enforcement, healthcare, and border control with stringent regulations.
G7 Hiroshima Summit (2023): The G7 nations jointly acknowledged the transformative power of AI while urging robust safeguards. Yet, disagreements linger on how to enforce universal standards.

7.4. Notable Case Studies

Predictive Policing in the UK (2022–2023): An AI system identified more “high-risk” areas in minority neighborhoods, perpetuating systemic over-policing.
Automated Welfare in the Netherlands (2022): The flawed fraud-detection AI triggered false investigations, shining a spotlight on the human cost of algorithmic bias.
Generative AI in Healthcare: A major U.S. hospital network’s triage model improved wait times but was found less accurate for underrepresented minorities, highlighting the risk of biased medical data.

8. Potential Dystopian Scenarios

8.1. Automated Oppression and Social Control

A centralized AI might autonomously flag “political dissidents” based on language patterns or social connections, leading to penalties or ostracism without ever consulting human oversight. This scenario effectively automates oppression, rendering populations fearful of expressing dissent even in private communications.

8.2. Economic Disenfranchisement

Imagine a “global compliance score” (akin to social credit systems) determining one’s right to education, job opportunities, or financial aid. Such a system can easily entrench existing social hierarchies and introduce new forms of discrimination when algorithmic logic lacks nuance or empathy.

8.3. Global Conflict Catalyzed by AI Error

Militaries increasingly rely on AI for threat analysis. A misinterpretation of routine drills as aggressive posturing could escalate tensions between major powers. With the potential for near-instantaneous decision-making, a small trigger could ignite a large-scale conflict before diplomatic or human intervention could occur.

8.4. Digital Gaslighting

Generative AI, capable of fabricating highly convincing text, audio, and video, could systematically rewrite historical records or distort contemporary events. Populations might lose all shared understanding of reality, crippled by an inability to distinguish manipulated propaganda from genuine information.

9. Phasing Out AI in a Minimum Viable Civilization

9.1. Rationale for a Phased Reduction

A “minimum viable civilization” envisions a society structured around essential human and ecological needs, free from the hyper-complexities that invite catastrophic collapses or moral disintegration. Within this framework, advanced AI systems—particularly those making autonomous decisions—might be deemed too great a risk to human autonomy, empathy, and accountability. Phasing out AI’s role in governance ensures that existential pitfalls such as biased policy, mass surveillance, or algorithmic tyranny are minimized.

9.2. Putting Humans Back at the Center

While AI can assist with data processing or logistical tasks, human beings must remain the final arbiters of high-stakes governance. This approach protects the crucial role of empathy and moral reasoning in public policy. Even if humans are fallible, they can still evaluate ethical implications, practice compassion, and be held accountable—traits AI fundamentally lacks.

9.3. Governance Without AI: Is It Feasible?

Critics argue that with billions of interconnected citizens, governance is too complex to manage manually. Yet, a minimum viable civilization might involve smaller, decentralized units of governance and more localized decision-making—thereby reducing the necessity for labyrinthine AI analytics. Additionally, technology can be used judiciously without handing over full decision-making authority. The pivot is toward deliberate, transparent usage rather than wholesale reliance.

9.4. Ethical Firewalls and Sunset Clauses

If a complete phase-out seems impractical in the short term, sunset clauses can mandate the retirement or renewal of governance-related AI systems after specific intervals. These enforced reviews would allow societies to re-evaluate an AI’s impact on civil liberties, fairness, and social cohesion periodically. Moreover, deploying ethical firewalls can limit AI’s access to sensitive personal data or life-critical decisions. The overarching aim: keep humans firmly in control.

10. Conclusion

In an era where the allure of centralized, AI-driven governance grows in tandem with urgent global challenges, we must also confront the severe risks. First, AI’s imitation of intelligence should not obscure the fact that it does not understand in a human sense, and thus should never be entrusted with ultimate power over life-and-death decisions. Second, while AI can mimic empathy, it lacks the emotional core that informs genuine compassion—raising the specter of cruelly efficient but morally void policy choices. Third, AI is susceptible to entrenched biases that can undermine social justice on a massive scale, especially when scaled up to global governance. Fourth, AI’s propensity to “hallucinate” facts or references introduces profound dangers for systems that require absolute informational integrity.

Couple these vulnerabilities with the specter of a highly centralized, global governance body, and the potential for widespread authoritarian control, data exploitation, and manipulation of human perception becomes disturbingly real. Recent data and case studies from 2022–2023 underscore that these concerns are not mere theoretical musings—they have already manifested in predictive policing, welfare distribution, and healthcare triage.

Human societies are at an inflection point: we can either surrender more and more authority to AI—enticed by promises of efficiency and uniform solutions—or we can actively decide to preserve human agency, empathy, and moral accountability at the heart of governance. The notion of a minimum viable civilization insists on scaling back technological reliance to protect our species’ core values and longer-term survival. Doing so may require strict oversight, sunset clauses, or even a deliberate retreat from advanced AI in governance roles.

Ultimately, technology should serve humanity, not the other way around. By staying vigilant about AI’s imitative nature, emotional void, biases, and hallucinations—and by recognizing how dangerous it can be under a centralized global authority—we can chart a more equitable, compassionate, and genuinely intelligent path forward for human civilization.

11. References and Suggested Further Reading

Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI. (2023) AI Index Report.
AI Now Institute. (2022) Tracking AI Bias: A Meta-Analysis of Societal Impact.
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2022) Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.
European Commission. (2023) Draft AI Act—Risk-Based Approach to AI Regulation.
G7 Hiroshima Summit. (2023) Joint Statement on Responsible AI.
Carnegie Mellon University & University of Oxford. (2022) Empathy Gaps in AI-Driven Mental Health Applications.
MIT Research Papers on Neural Networks (2021–2023). Multiple discussions on the limitations of deep learning and symbolic AI.
ProPublica. (Ongoing) Investigative articles on AI in criminal justice, including Machine Bias.

Author’s Note: All figures cited (e.g., global AI investment statistics, adoption rates, or bias case studies) are taken from publicly available sources and widely recognized within the AI policy and research communities. Data is accurate to the best of current public knowledge as of 2022–2023.

Tuesday, April 15, 2025

The Looming Perils of AI-Driven Centralized Governance: A Call for Vigilance and a Potential Phase-Out

Table of Contents