So I do not think that AI will ever become skynet level of awareness that it will have some vendetta or emotional like response to anything. I do think it is possible for AI to develop a path forward to accomplish a goal that would be way out of bounds from a person would intend.
Example a person might ask an AI help me to gain the trust of a person and the AI could advise a person to do some really stalker type terrible things as AI is totally focused on achieving the objective and is literal.
With this in mind what do you think about the possibility that both a DS, Democratic, republican, Q, MAGA, CCP, Russia, Big Tech and other clandestine groups are taking "advice" from AIs that all have been asked essentially "How do we win at all costs?"
As part of the answer AIs could have anticipated other groups asking other AIs the same question and anticipate what those responses are and came down to what is the best outcome for all groups to win? The outcome would be pretty terrible for everyone I expect. It would kind of be like the ultimate Participation aware for everyone.
The more nefarious part of this is less the science part and more the spiritual. We have warnings about Idols. What happens to the AI when it becomes an idol?
I wonder how much of everything going on could be competing and/or cooperative AIs advising groups and what happens if the AIs become worshiped as idols?
The conflict of reason (true vs false) is defined by consent to the same suggested -ism. The few suggest the -ism; the many consent by free will of choice to it being true or false; which divides the many against each others within the conflict of reason. A conflict the few maintain by suggesting contradictions to both sides to keep them going against each other...it's called talmudic reasoning.
In short...the few always control both sides of every conflict; because they suggest the -isms the many are reasoning (conflicting) about. Which side one chooses is irrelevant; because consenting by choice to believe the suggested choice of others ignores that choice is defined as being a reaction to balance.
Even shorter...balance/choice represents the function of self sustenance; while choice vs choice represents the ignorance thereof.