Column By Mike Bibb
I’ll be the first to admit understanding Artificial Intelligence (AI), seems to be light years beyond my comprehension.
As is having the ability to distinguish AI fact from AI fiction.
For two reasons: Thousands of years of human development have brought me to the point where my brain is barely capable of realizing the rings of Saturn exist, but I don’t why. Or, for that matter, what benefit are Saturn’s rings to me or anyone else on planet Earth?
Secondly, some people intentionally lie, steal, cheat, and kill other people, and invented numerous ways to do it. Laws, courts, and jails were concocted as a deterrent, but laws change, courts relax enforcement, and jails are considered inhumane.
Now, along comes something called Artificial Intelligence. Just the name of the topic has me baffled.
Technically, AI is supposed to be “the capability of computers to mimic human thought processes and the science dealing with this.” — Webster’s New World Dictionary.
In turn, this definition is an offshoot of the single word “artificial,” meaning “made by human work; not natural.”
Applying these statements, wouldn’t the ancient pyramids of Egypt and the Great Wall of China, which were constructed by human labor, be considered artificial? Yet, no one ever thinks of them in this way.
Actually, couldn’t every building, bridge, automobile, rocket, pharmaceutical, art painting, sculpture, computer, musical composition, and everything not naturally found in nature be considered artificial because they were created by humans and human technology?
Otherwise, not the real thing.
So, when a bunch of computers are electronically linked together to form a giant storage information center, capable of receiving and dispensing accumulated data to whomever is connected to this machine, then a distinct advantage can be gained over anyone who is not a client of this contraption.
AI, apparently, is already in use in many business, government, economic, and scientific fields.
Safford’s Flock cameras, for instance, have become a subject of concern for many citizens.
While local law enforcement and court officials are positive the cameras are a useful tool in detecting crime, many citizens have become concerned about possible privacy transgressions and constitutional infringements.
Then, there’s the issue if purchase and installation of the cameras were lawfully authorized.
I suppose Safford City Council member Dusti Brantner was wondering the same thing.
“Brantner said that the main problem is a lack of transparency and that she wasn’t comfortable with being able to be tracked. Additionally, the system had been brought in by the previous city manager, who declined to involve the council with its implementation.” — Gila Herald, July 28, 2026.
This situation opens a whole different can of worms.
If the above reporting is what actually happened, then how come the Safford City Council was in the dark regarding the previous city manager’s involvement in the Flock camera purchase?
Can a city manager do whatever he pleases without obtaining consent from the council? If so, what’s the purpose of the council if the city manager is calling the shots?
Maybe, another “Special City Council Meeting” needs to be held to explain to the public how this mess was allowed to happen.
Disagreement on the use of Flock cameras is one thing — finding out the council wasn’t involved is another.
Also, wasn’t the previous city manager the same guy the council fired (without cause), and gave him an additional $190,000, plus health care benefits as a going away present?
What’s next?
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
