AI vs. natural intelligence... and the winner is?

Should Iowans really be so concerned about Artificial Intelligence? Yes, but why? Physicist Frank Wilczek provides us with a straightforward observation on why: “What worries me is not so much Artificial Intelligence but natural stupidity.”

So, AI appears less harmful than natural stupidity; however, should it be “feared" more when compared to natural intelligence (i.e., critical thinking)? The question, therefore, is?

AI versus natural intelligence presents both a challenge and a dilemma for Iowans. What should we honestly be asking ourselves? Would it be more efficient and convenient to have hand-held/laptop electronic devices providing us with all the knowledge required at a moment’s notice, or would it be more prudent for personal development and survival to “think” on our own?

And the winner is?

It is certainly not natural stupidity, but is it critical thinking? In our daily lives, is it so cumbersome to think on our own? Probably, because thinking challenges “one to go outside the box, connect the dots, study, ask relevant questions, possess doubts, rely on verifiable facts, be curious, have discussions with others, problem-solve, prognosticate, evaluate, utilize common sense — all of these tasks require time and dedication....” (“Trump: King of the Unthinking,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, Oct. 24, 2025).

If we find critical thinking so difficult, would AI solve this everyday nuisance? Would AI really be so negative? Yes and no, but what are the real costs, known and unknown, of AI on our present and mostly importantly, future society?

With AI, there will be a continual restructuring of the workforce with the subsequent loss of employment for thousands of skilled workers. Using AI, how movies are produced and the manner in which books, plays and artworks are created will be significantly altered. Utilizing AI-generated chatbots, young adolescents are already experiencing an increase in mental health issues caused by such devices.

The vulnerability, and probability, that AI data centers will be exposed to attacks by foreign-government supported hackers deserves special attention and remediation. In addition, the utilization of AI for fraudulent activities and purposes will undoubtably increase.

For communities where AI centers will be located, the tremendous amount of energy required to sustain these data centers, and the water required to cool these facilities, will be detrimental to them, thereby increasing local energy costs. A novel alternative under active consideration, however, to overcome this land-based issue, is the viability of employing “orbital AI data centers” in space, where the energy from the sun could be harnessed to operate such entities. In the future, utmost consideration must also be given to how climate change/ global warming will affect the operation of land-based centers under conditions of prolonged drought and/or high sustained temperatures/humidity, and whether or not orbital AI data centers are indeed feasible.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, what catastrophic consequences will be experienced by the business, banking and governmental communities if or when the AI “bubble” bursts?

As Iowans, and citizens nationwide, witness the rather rapid utilization of the various functions of AI noted above, who and what will ultimately control the future proliferation of such technology? Will each state apply its own authority to legislate/restrict how AI applications maybe utilized, or will final overall control be exerted by federal regulations alone? With respect to who presently controls AI, it appears the conflict between states and the federal government has already begun. Recently, Mr. Trump “signed an executive order setting up an ‘AI Litigation Task Force’ to challenge state laws on artificial intelligence that the administration considers overly burdensome.” (Trump vs. states: Who gets to regulate AI? The Week, Dec. 26, 2025).

Whether or not this current presidential executive order is constitutionally valid, purposeful consideration must be given to fully understanding the complete ramifications of AI on the future of all American citizens exposed to this technology.

In the end, Iowans and their lawmakers should carefully consider whether the advantages of AI outweigh the risks such technology may have on the future of our ability to process complex subjects on our own, without the need for a system which will do all the thinking for us.

Ergo Iowans, the winner is and should always be to cultivate natural intelligence, whatever the cost. However, whether AI can be employed to safely supplement, but not be a substitute for, and thus enhance our natural intelligence in a controlled and meaningful manner, is the next “real” question to be fully examined and, thereafter, thoughtfully debated.

John M. Mishler is a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.