AI Is the New King—and the People Who Know How to Command It Are the New Royal Family

 

AI is creating a new aristocracy—and if you cannot use it, you may soon be serving those who can. In plain terms, AI has seized the throne. Learn to command it now, or spend the next decade working for people who did.

The coronation happened on November 30, 2022.

There was no cathedral. No golden carriage. No crown. No trumpet. No priest shouting, “Long live the King!”

There was just a computer screen.

On that day, OpenAI released ChatGPT to the public as a research preview. It looked almost harmless: a little box waiting for somebody to type something into it. Ask a question. Get an answer. Ask another. Get another. Cute.

I think history will remember it differently. November 30, 2022, was the day the throne changed hands. Since 2022, AI has become the New King. And those who know how to use it have become the new noblemen and members of the royal family.

That sounds dramatic.

Good.

History is dramatic.

The steam engine was dramatic. Electricity was dramatic. The automobile was dramatic. The computer was dramatic. The Internet was dramatic. Every major technology eventually divides society into two camps: people who learn how to use the new machine and people who continue behaving as though the old world still exists.

We have seen this movie before.

When industrial machinery spread during the Industrial Revolution, muscle gradually lost some of its economic power to machines. A worker could swing a hammer harder. The machine did not care. It could swing harder, longer, faster, and without asking for lunch.

Then computers arrived.

Suddenly, knowing how to calculate everything by hand was no longer enough. Knowing how to command the machine became more valuable. The spreadsheet did not destroy arithmetic. It changed who could perform complicated arithmetic quickly.

The Internet pulled the same stunt.

A business with a website could reach customers across continents. A researcher with Internet access could search information that once required hours inside a library. The old gatekeepers began losing their keys.

Now AI has entered the palace. And this fellow is greedy.

It wants writing.

It wants programming.

It wants research.

It wants marketing.

It wants customer service.

It wants data analysis.

It wants images.

It wants video.

It wants accounting.

It wants medicine.

It wants law.

It wants education.

It even wants pieces of management.

“Excuse me, Your Majesty. Is there anything you do not want?”

Silence.

That is the scary part.

OpenAI introduced ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, as a conversational system capable of answering follow-up questions, acknowledging mistakes, challenging incorrect assumptions, and following detailed instructions. What followed was not merely another Silicon Valley product cycle. It was the opening of the palace gates.

The numbers tell the story without perfume.

Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index reports that generative AI reached 53% adoption within just 3 years, faster than either the personal computer or the Internet. It also reports that 88% of surveyed organizations were using AI in 2025 and 70% were using generative AI in at least one business function. Global corporate AI investment more than doubled in 2025, while generative-AI investment grew by more than 200%.

Read those numbers again.

This is not a toy waiting to discover whether it has a market. The market has arrived. McKinsey found the same stampede. In its 2025 global survey of 1,993 participants across 105 countries, 88% said their organizations regularly used AI in at least one business function, up from 78% the previous year. Even more revealing, 62% said their organizations were already experimenting with or scaling AI agents.

So when somebody tells me, “AI is just hype,” I want to pull up a chair.

“Please continue.”

I enjoy comedy.

The real question is no longer whether AI will enter the workplace. The fellow is already sitting at the desk. The real question is who will learn to command it. That is where my royal-family argument begins.

The new aristocracy will not necessarily be the people who own castles, inherit titles, or wear expensive suits. Increasingly, it will include ordinary people who understand how to turn AI into economic leverage.

A person who once needed 5 hours to research, organize, analyze, draft, edit, and format something may increasingly accomplish portions of that work in a fraction of the time. A small business owner can use AI to draft advertisements, analyze customer feedback, prepare marketing ideas, summarize documents, brainstorm products, and automate routine communication. A programmer can use it to help debug code. A professor can use it to develop instructional materials. A financial analyst can use it to explore scenarios and organize research, provided the human verifies the work.

One person walks into the office carrying only his brain.

Another walks in carrying his brain plus an artificial army.

Tell me again that these two workers are competing on equal terms.

They are not.

Research gives this argument teeth. An NBER study by Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey R. Raymond examined 5,179 customer-support agents. Access to a generative-AI assistant increased productivity by about 14% on average. Among novice and lower-skilled workers, the improvement reached 34%.

That number should make managers sit upright.

AI was not merely helping experts become slightly faster. It was allowing less-experienced workers to absorb patterns associated with better workers.

That is almost medieval in reverse.

For centuries, knowledge was guarded. Masters knew things apprentices did not. Professionals accumulated techniques through years of experience. Institutions controlled access to books, professors, laboratories, databases, and specialists.

AI walks into that arrangement carrying bolt cutters.

“Where is the gate?”

“What gate?”

Exactly.

Another NBER study of 7,137 knowledge workers across 66 firms found that among workers given access to a generative-AI tool, the 80% who used it spent about 2 fewer hours per week on email during the latter half of the 6-month experiment and also reduced work outside regular hours.

Time is money.

But time is something nastier than money.

Money lost can sometimes be earned again. Yesterday cannot.

That is why I call skilled AI users the new noblemen. Their privilege is leverage.

And the labor market is beginning to price that privilege.

PwC’s 2025 Global AI Jobs Barometer found that jobs requiring AI skills carried an average wage premium of 56% in 2024. The premium varied sharply by industry: 123% in wholesale and retail trade, 103% in energy, 95% in information and communication, 65% in manufacturing, 64% in professional services, and 60% in financial services.

There is my crown.

It is sitting inside the paycheck.

Of course, AI will not make everybody rich. Owning Microsoft Excel never made everybody an accountant. Having Google never made everybody a scholar. Owning a camera never made everybody Steven Spielberg.

Access is not mastery.

That distinction matters.

Millions of people can open an AI chatbot and type, “Write something about business.”

Wonderful.

Millions of people can also buy a piano.

The concert hall remains strangely empty.

The valuable skill is learning how to interrogate AI, structure problems, provide context, test assumptions, verify outputs, combine tools, recognize hallucinations, refine prompts, protect confidential information, and convert machine output into useful human decisions.

That is where the crown sits.

The future may therefore contain a cruel irony. AI was supposed to democratize knowledge. It probably will. But democratizing a powerful tool does not guarantee equal outcomes.

Give two people the same hammer.

One builds a house.

The other breaks his thumb.

The IMF estimates that almost 40% of global employment is exposed to AI. In advanced economies, the figure rises to about 60%. Some workers will benefit because AI complements their abilities. Others may face lower labor demand, weaker wages, or outright replacement as machines perform portions of their jobs.

That is the uncomfortable part of the coronation.

Every king collects taxes.

AI's tax may be paid by workers who refuse to adapt.

I am not predicting that humans will become useless. That is Hollywood nonsense. Humans still provide judgment, accountability, trust, relationships, physical action, ethical responsibility, context, taste, leadership, and the ability to recognize when the machine is confidently talking rubbish.

But the competition is changing.

Increasingly, the contest will not be human versus AI.

It will be human versus human-with-AI.

That fight is ugly.

Imagine two equally talented consultants. One refuses AI because he considers using it intellectually impure. The other uses AI to organize research, interrogate datasets, generate competing hypotheses, summarize documents, rehearse objections, and draft alternative presentations before applying his own judgment.

They both have 8 hours.

One effectively brings one  worker to the battlefield.

The other brings a small platoon.

Who do I bet on?

Please.

I was born at night, but not last night.

And the transformation is accelerating. McKinsey reported that 71% of surveyed organizations were regularly using generative AI in at least 1 business function in its 2024 survey data, with especially heavy use in marketing and sales, product and service development, service operations, software engineering, and IT. By 2025, overall organizational AI use had reached 88%.

The palace is getting crowded.

There is another uncomfortable class issue hiding underneath all this.

An NBER study of U.S. adoption found that by late 2024, nearly 40% of Americans ages 18–64 were using generative AI. About 23% of employed respondents had used it for work during the previous week, while 9% were using it every working day. Yet adoption was not evenly distributed. NBER reported workplace adoption of about 40% among workers with bachelor's degrees or higher compared with about 20% among workers without college degrees. Usage reached 49.6% in computer and mathematical occupations and 49% in management occupations.

There it is.

A new digital class system is quietly forming.

Not simply rich versus poor.

Not simply educated versus uneducated.

Increasingly, AI-fluent versus AI-illiterate.

That division may become vicious because AI does not merely give people information. Properly used, it gives them leverage over information.

That is different.

Information tells me what bricks are.

Leverage helps me build the wall.

And this is why I reject the comforting little sentence people love repeating: “AI will never replace humans.”

Perhaps.

But that sentence is incomplete.

AI does not have to replace humanity to wreck somebody's career.

A calculator did not replace mathematicians. It replaced the commercial value of paying somebody merely to perform basic arithmetic slowly.

Word processors did not replace writers. They demolished entire layers of manual typing and document production.

Digital photography did not abolish photographers. It gutted businesses built around film processing.

Google did not eliminate researchers. It made certain forms of information retrieval almost laughably cheap.

Technology rarely announces, “I have come to destroy your profession.”

It whispers something more dangerous:

“I can make part of your profession cheaper.”

Then another part.

Then another.

That is how kingdoms fall.

So, yes, I call AI the New King. Not because I worship machines. Kings should never be worshipped merely because they sit on thrones. I call it King because power has shifted toward it. Capital is flooding toward it. Companies are adopting it. Workers are learning it. Universities are confronting it. Governments are regulating it. Investors are financing it. Employers are paying premiums for its skills. Stanford reports that private investment in generative AI grew more than 200% in 2025, while newly funded AI companies increased 71%.

Money has an excellent nose.

It smells power before speeches do.

But I would add one final warning.

The new nobleman is not the person who merely uses AI.

It is the person who knows what he is doing with it.

Blind dependence on AI is not sophistication. It is intellectual drunkenness. AI can hallucinate facts, misunderstand context, reproduce errors, generate mediocre sludge, and produce confident answers that collapse under inspection. The human who stops thinking because AI can think with him has not joined the royal family.

He has become the court fool.

The crown belongs to the person who combines human judgment with machine speed.

That person asks better questions.

Checks the answers.

Challenges the machine.

Uses multiple sources.

Knows when to accept the output.

Knows when to throw it into the garbage.

And, most importantly, knows how to turn the machine's capabilities into measurable value.

That is the new aristocracy I see emerging.

The old nobleman inherited land.

The industrial nobleman owned factories.

The 20th-century nobleman controlled capital.

The Internet nobleman controlled networks and information.

The AI nobleman commands intelligence on demand.

Welcome to the new kingdom.

The King is already on the throne.

The palace gates are open.

And the brutal question facing every worker, entrepreneur, professor, student, professional, and business owner is no longer whether AI deserves the crown. History has already moved past that argument. The question is much simpler: Do I learn how to command the King—or spend the next decade bowing to the people who did?

 

On a different but equally important note, readers who enjoy thoughtful analysis may also find the titles in my  “Brief Book Series” worth exploring. You can also read them here on Google Play, or in Barnes & Noble bookstore: Brief Book Series.

 

Brown University Has Gone Weird: No GPA, No Clothes, No Problem!

 

Welcome to Brown, where genius meets madness: Students once voted for nuclear-war suicide pills, run naked with donuts, and graduate without GPAs. Yet employers still want them.

I have seen strange universities. I have heard strange college traditions. But Brown University operates in a neighborhood of weirdness where the street signs seem to have been removed on purpose.

This is an Ivy League university, mind you. Founded in 1764. Providence, Rhode Island. Serious professors. Serious research. Serious money. Serious students. Brown’s current admissions numbers are brutal: 47,944 people applied for the Class of 2030, only 2,688 were admitted, producing an acceptance rate of just 5.6%. An astonishing 97% of admitted students whose schools reported rankings were in the top 10% of their graduating classes.

These are not academic tourists. They are some of the brightest young people in America and around the world. Then they arrive at Brown. And Brown says, essentially, “Welcome. Now forget what you thought college was supposed to look like.”

That is where things get weird.

I am not using “weird” as an insult without evidence. Brown has spent decades manufacturing evidence.

Consider 1984.

America and the Soviet Union were staring at each other across a mountain of nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan was president. The Cold War was hot enough to make people sweat without firing a missile. Nuclear annihilation was not some Hollywood fantasy. Millions genuinely feared that Washington and Moscow could eventually press the wrong buttons and turn civilization into radioactive toast.

Brown students decided to make a statement. Naturally, because this was Brown, an ordinary anti-nuclear rally apparently would not do. Students voted on whether the university health service should stock suicide pills for use after a nuclear attack.

Yes.

Suicide pills.

At an Ivy League university.

Brown University’s own historical archive confirms the episode. During student elections on October 11 and 12, 1984, a referendum called for University Health Service to stock suicide pills that would become available in the event of nuclear war. Only 35% of the student body voted, but the proposal passed 1,044 to 687. Students Jason Salzman and Chris Ferguson promoted the idea as a way of forcing people to confront nuclear war in terms of death and destruction rather than victory and survival.

The university refused to stock the pills.

Thank God somebody was still minding the pharmacy.

I understand the political theater. I understand symbolism. I understand young people trying to shock comfortable adults into thinking about nuclear annihilation.

But I also know weird when I see it.

Imagine the conversation.

“What did students at Harvard do?”

“They protested.”

“What about Yale?”

“They held a forum.”

“What about Brown?”

“They want cyanide.”

Case closed.

Except Brown was apparently just warming up.

Years later came another piece of College Hill folklore: the Naked Donut Run.

The name does not hide the merchandise. Students run naked through campus libraries distributing donuts.

Brown’s student newspaper reports that the tradition probably began in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Participants have run through places such as the Rockefeller Library and Sciences Library, removing their clothes and handing donuts to students preparing for exams. A 2022 account reported an order involving more than 1,000 donut holes.

I have questions.

Many questions.

But the biggest is simple: Who looked at final-exam stress and concluded that what the library desperately needed was naked people carrying pastries?

At most universities, somebody brings coffee.

At Brown, apparently, somebody brings buns while showing theirs.

You cannot make this stuff up.

Brown students and organizers have defended the tradition in terms of spontaneity, freedom and body positivity. Fair enough. Adults have the right to make unconventional choices within reasonable rules. I am not calling for the donut police.

I am simply saying that if naked students suddenly sprint through a library carrying Dunkin’ while you are studying organic chemistry, the English language has already supplied us with a perfectly good adjective.

Weird.

Then we arrive at Sex Power God.

Even the name sounds as if three philosophy majors and a bottle of tequila held a committee meeting.

Sex Power God was an annual Queer Alliance dance that became notorious well beyond Brown. In 2005, a Fox News producer entered the event and secretly recorded students, creating a national controversy. Brown students later criticized the filming as invasive and unethical. That criticism deserves to be taken seriously. People attending a closed event should not automatically expect themselves to become television entertainment simply because a journalist manages to get through the door.

But the event itself was hardly Sunday school.

Brown’s own student newspaper reported that 24 students required medical attention at the 2005 Sex Power God event. The following year, 14 students required medical attention. Organizers subsequently emphasized creating a “sober, sane, safe and consensual” environment.

Again, Brown is Brown.

The institution seems to possess an extraordinary ability to combine elite intellectual seriousness with behavior that sounds like material rejected from a college comedy because the screenwriter thought audiences would find it unrealistic.

And yet here is where my argument becomes uncomfortable.

Because underneath Brown’s carnival of eccentricity sits an educational idea that I cannot dismiss nearly as easily.

The Open Curriculum.

Brown formally created the foundation for what became its Open Curriculum after faculty approved major curricular reforms in 1969. More than 50 years later, the philosophy remains strikingly different from the traditional American university model.

Brown students do not face a traditional university-wide core curriculum. They are expected to complete at least 30 courses, complete at least one concentration, demonstrate writing competence and satisfy residency requirements. Beyond that framework, students have enormous freedom to construct their education. Brown offers nearly 80 concentrations, and students may even design independent concentrations.

Then comes the part that makes the professor in me twitch.

Students can choose satisfactory/no-credit grading for courses unless an instructor has designated otherwise. Brown does not calculate student GPAs.

No GPA?

At Brown?

The university that admits roughly 6 students out of every 100 applicants?

My first instinct is simple.

Come on.

The world does not operate on satisfactory/no credit.

Employers evaluate you. Customers evaluate you. Editors reject manuscripts. Banks reject loan applications. Voters throw politicians out. Universities deny tenure. Businesses fail. Athletes get cut. Professors receive student evaluations. Writers discover that readers have the brutal freedom not to buy their books.

Life keeps score.

Sometimes unfairly.

Sometimes viciously.

But it keeps score.

So I understand why Michigan’s coming experiment bothers me. Beginning tentatively in fall 2027, the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts plans to cover traditional grades for first-semester freshmen, showing pass/no-credit results on external transcripts while students still receive grades and feedback internally. The idea is to reduce academic pressure and encourage students to take intellectual risks.

I call that coddling.

At least initially.

Because if you are old enough to leave home, choose a university, borrow serious money, select a major and prepare for adulthood, perhaps you are old enough to discover that a C is a C.

But then Brown ruins my argument.

That weird place forces me to think.

Brown’s students have already competed ferociously just to enter the gate. For the Class of 2030, the middle 50% SAT range among admitted students who submitted scores was 1470–1550. The middle 50% ACT range was 34–36.

These kids know competition.

They have been marinating in it.

Many have spent high school collecting AP courses, extracurricular activities, leadership positions, volunteer hours, test scores and awards like soldiers collecting ammunition.

Perhaps Brown is asking an uncomfortable question: Once you have assembled some of the strongest students in the world, must you keep whipping them with the GPA stick every waking minute?

That question bothers me because I can apply it to myself.

I loved my education at Nnamdi Azikiwe University in Awka (Nigeria), the University of Phoenix and Walden University. I studied Applied Statistics and Demography and later Finance. I knew what I wanted. I wanted the degrees. I wanted the credentials. I wanted to become a college professor.

So I pursued the target.

Bang.

Grade.

Bang.

Degree.

Bang.

Next qualification.

There is nothing wrong with that. Discipline matters. Standards matter. Grades matter.

But something else matters too.

Curiosity.

Perhaps I could have spent more time wandering intellectually. Perhaps I could have sat longer with people studying subjects completely outside my lane. Perhaps I could have taken more courses simply because the professor fascinated me. Perhaps I could have treated education occasionally as exploration rather than transportation.

That is Brown’s strongest defense.

The university is weird because it trusts exceptionally accomplished students with an unusual amount of freedom.

Sometimes that freedom produces intellectual exploration.

Sometimes it produces a Naked Donut Run.

Freedom is funny that way.

MIT offers another inconvenient piece of evidence. Its first-year students currently receive Pass or No Record grades during the fall and January Independent Activities Period. Professors still submit underlying letter grades for advising purposes. Standard A–F grading does not fully begin until sophomore year. MIT explicitly says the policy is designed to help students adjust to increased workloads and differences in academic preparation and teaching.

So Brown is not alone.

MIT is weird too.

Michigan wants to join the club.

Maybe elite American education is slowly developing a strange philosophy: We spent 12 years forcing brilliant children to compete for every decimal point, trophy, test score and résumé line. Perhaps when they finally arrive, we can occasionally allow them to learn something simply because they want to know it.

I still have reservations.

Grades provide information. Competition can build resilience. Failure teaches lessons that participation trophies cannot. Universities should be extremely careful about confusing emotional comfort with education. The purpose of college cannot become protecting adults from discovering that somebody performed better than they did.

But Brown’s academic weirdness is harder to ridicule than its naked pastries.

The results certainly do not look like academic collapse. Brown reports that 95% of its 2023 graduates were employed or attending graduate or professional school within 9 months of graduation. It also reports that 83% of its 2024 graduates who applied to law school were admitted and 81% of those applying to medical school were admitted.

Apparently, civilization survived the missing GPA.

That leaves me in an uncomfortable position.

I still think Brown University is weird.

Spectacularly weird.

Historically documented weird.

A university where students once voted for post-nuclear-war suicide pills, where naked runners have distributed donuts in libraries, where Sex Power God became campus folklore, where students can choose satisfactory/no-credit grading, and where the institution refuses even to calculate GPA has earned the adjective honestly.

But perhaps weirdness is not always stupidity.

Sometimes weird is simply an experiment whose logic is not immediately obvious.

Brown’s strangest lesson may therefore have nothing to do with naked runners, nuclear pills or provocative dances. It may be that highly accomplished students occasionally need permission to stop treating education like an Olympic event.

I still believe the real world grades us every day.

I still believe students need toughness.

I still believe universities can coddle young adults until reality eventually sends them an invoice.

But I also believe education should create curiosity, not merely transcripts.

So I will give Brown this much.

Keep the Open Curriculum.

Keep intellectual exploration.

Keep challenging the assembly-line model of higher education.

But please, Brown, I beg you.

When I am studying in the library, just put the donuts on the table.

 

As a side note for regular readers, I have also written many titles in my Brief Book Series, now available on Google Play Books. You can also read them  here on Google Play, or in Barnes & Noble bookstore: Brief Book Series.

 

Can ChatGPT Really Help You Win Powerball? If You Believe That, You’ll Believe Anything

 

Put your belief that ChatGPT can help you win Mega Millions and Powerball into a box and shoot it; because AI can crunch the numbers, but it cannot bully Lady Luck.

I can already hear the sales pitch.

“Forget lucky birthdays. Forget fortune cookies. Forget the old man at the gas station who swears 17 is hot this week. Artificial intelligence has arrived. Ask ChatGPT for your Powerball numbers, buy the ticket, and start shopping for the Lamborghini.”

Wonderful.

There is only one small problem: It is nonsense.

ChatGPT can write a poem about Powerball. It can explain Powerball. It can calculate the odds of Powerball. It can generate Powerball numbers. It can even give those numbers an impressive-looking explanation. What it cannot do is see Wednesday night hiding inside Tuesday afternoon. That little detail kills the entire fantasy.

Powerball currently asks players to choose 5 white-ball numbers from 1 through 69 and 1 red Powerball from 1 through 26. A ticket costs $2, and the official jackpot odds are approximately 1 in 292.2 million. Mega Millions is hardly more charitable. Under the game introduced in 2025, a player chooses 5 numbers from 1 through 70 and 1 Mega Ball from 1 through 24. A ticket costs $5. The jackpot odds are 1 in 290,472,336.

Read that number again.

290,472,336.

That is not a typo.

That is mathematics standing at the door with a baseball bat.

Yet AI has entered the lottery conversation because we humans have an ancient weakness. We hate randomness. Randomness insults us. It tells us that our intelligence, education, research, spreadsheets, algorithms, dreams, birthdays, dead grandmother's favorite number and ChatGPT prompts may have absolutely nothing to do with what happens next.

We don't like that.

So we invent patterns.

“Number 32 hasn't appeared lately.”

Fine.

“Number 7 is overdue.”

Says who?

“Look at the historical data.”

I am looking.

The historical data tells me what happened yesterday. The lottery machine is interested in what happens tonight. That distinction is everything. Mega Millions itself explains that its drawing machines and ball sets are randomly selected, tested before drawings and certified by outside auditors. The purpose is straightforward: each number is supposed to have an equal chance of being drawn.

So imagine me walking into a convenience store carrying my smartphone like Moses carrying the tablets.

“ChatGPT gave me the numbers.”

The cashier looks at me.

“So?”

“It analyzed them.”

He shrugs.

“That'll be $5.”

And there goes my money.

The machine does not care that my numbers came from artificial intelligence. It does not care whether they came from Harvard, MIT, NASA, ChatGPT, my grandmother or a chicken walking across numbered squares.

Random is random.

This is where the story becomes deliciously dangerous, because there actually have been people who won substantial lottery prizes after using ChatGPT-generated numbers. In 2025, Tammy Carvey of Michigan asked ChatGPT for Powerball numbers. She played them. Her ticket matched 4 white balls and the Powerball. The original prize was $50,000, and Power Play doubled it to $100,000. Then there was Carrie Edwards of Virginia. She used numbers suggested with ChatGPT's help and won $150,000 playing Powerball. Her story became even more remarkable because she donated her winnings to charity.

There.

Case closed.

ChatGPT predicts lotteries.

Right?

Wrong.

This is exactly how coincidence puts on a necktie and begins pretending to be science. Millions of lottery combinations are purchased. Some are chosen from birthdays. Some come from Quick Pick. Some come from dreams. Some come from family traditions. Some come from numbers on license plates. And now some come from AI. Eventually, somebody using AI will win something. That proves that the ticket won. It does not prove that AI predicted the drawing. The difference is enormous.

Suppose I close my eyes, throw a dart at a wall covered with numbers and use the numbers the dart hits. If I win $100,000, nobody should conclude that darts have developed predictive intelligence. Yet put the same random selection behind a glowing computer screen and suddenly we start whispering about algorithms.

Welcome to the age of technological superstition.

The irony gets better. Mega Millions has its own random-number generator. The official website will generate numbers for players, and it explicitly says those selections are for entertainment purposes. More importantly, Mega Millions says no method of choosing randomly generated picks is better than another.

That sentence should be printed on a billboard.

AI cannot squeeze tomorrow's winning combination out of yesterday's lottery results because properly conducted lottery drawings are independent random events. If 23 appeared recently, that does not make 23 tired. If 41 has disappeared for weeks, 41 is not sitting backstage saying, “Boss, I'm overdue.”

Numbers have no memory.

Balls have no ambition.

The Powerball does not suffer from fear of missing out (FOMO).

This is the gambler's fallacy wearing an AI costume. And the jackpots themselves help feed the madness because they are enormous enough to make common sense pack its bags.

Mega Millions' record jackpot reached $1.602 billion in Florida on August 8, 2023. Other jackpots have exceeded $1 billion in South Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey and California. Once people see $1 billion flashing above a convenience-store counter, mathematics starts sounding like a party pooper.

“One ticket.”

Then another.

Then another.

“ChatGPT, analyze the last 100 drawings.”

Now we are cooking.

Except we aren't.

We are decorating randomness.

AI can find frequencies in past drawings. It can count how often numbers appeared. It can identify so-called hot and cold numbers. It can produce charts. It can calculate combinations. It can avoid commonly selected birthday numbers. It can generate 20 tickets that look beautifully balanced between odd and even numbers.

None of that makes the next random balls obey the analysis.

That is the scam hiding inside some of the breathless talk about AI lottery systems. The scam is not necessarily ChatGPT. ChatGPT is merely a tool. The problem begins when people assign supernatural powers to statistical analysis.

I can ask AI:

“Give me the most likely Powerball numbers.”

The intellectually responsible answer is boring. There are no magic numbers. Every valid combination faces the same jackpot probability in a fair drawing. That doesn't sell many “secret systems.”

So somebody adds fireworks.

“AI POWERBALL STRATEGY THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!”

Now we're in business.

Add a photograph of a mansion.

Put a Lamborghini in the corner.

Throw dollar bills across the thumbnail.

Somewhere, mathematics is drinking alone.

Consider what happened in Ohio in 2026. A $60 million Mega Millions jackpot was won with an auto-pick ticket. The winning numbers were 4, 11, 18, 38, 50 and Mega Ball 24. The winner chose the $30 million cash option.

The computer randomly picked the numbers.

No prophecy.

No secret prompt.

No 73-page AI strategy.

Just chance.

That is uncomfortable because chance cannot be monetized as easily as hope.

Hope needs a system.

Hope needs a guru.

Hope needs an algorithm.

Hope needs somebody saying, “I have cracked the code.”

But the code has not been cracked.

If someone actually developed an AI system that could reliably predict Powerball or Mega Millions, I doubt that person would be selling the method for $19.99 on the Internet. I imagine the conversation differently.

“Sir, how did you become a billionaire?”

“I predicted lotteries.”

“Can I buy your course?”

“No.”

“Can I subscribe to your newsletter?”

“No.”

“Can I see your prompt?”

“No.”

Then the billionaire disappears behind a gold-plated door. That would make sense. Selling a supposedly reliable jackpot-prediction system makes about as much sense as discovering an oil field under my backyard and earning my fortune by selling maps to the backyard.

There is, however, one legitimate thing AI can do for lottery players: It can help me understand the game. That matters. ChatGPT can explain probability. It can calculate how much I am spending. It can show me that buying more tickets increases my chances only by buying more combinations, not by making any individual combination magically smarter. It can explain lump-sum versus annuity payments. It can help me understand taxes. It can generate random numbers for entertainment. It can even help me build a strict lottery budget so entertainment does not quietly become financial self-harm.

Those are useful jobs.

Predicting the winning numbers is not one of them.

And there is another cruel joke buried here.

Powerball's overall odds of winning some prize are about 1 in 24.9, while the jackpot odds are roughly 1 in 292.2 million. Mega Millions' overall odds of winning any prize are 1 in 23, but the jackpot odds are 1 in 290,472,336. That gap explains much of lottery psychology. People win small amounts often enough to keep hope alive.

Then the giant jackpot sits on television wearing makeup.

$500 million.

$800 million.

$1 billion.

Come closer.

Just $2.

Just $5.

Maybe tonight.

And now AI adds a futuristic whisper:

“Maybe technology can improve your chances.”

No.

Technology can make the ticket-selection process more sophisticated. It cannot make randomness less random. If ChatGPT gives me 8, 19, 27, 44, 61 and Powerball 13, those numbers are not blessed by silicon. They are simply numbers. If they win, I got lucky. If they lose, ChatGPT did not malfunction. And if somebody wins after using AI-generated numbers, congratulations are appropriate. Scientific conclusions are not.

That distinction matters because humans have always confused successful outcomes with successful methods. The lottery merely makes the mistake spectacular.

A man dreams about 17 and wins using 17.

Suddenly dreams predict lotteries.

A woman uses her children's birthdays and wins.

Suddenly birthdays are a strategy.

A computer generates numbers and wins.

Computers are lucky.

ChatGPT generates numbers and wins.

Artificial intelligence has cracked Powerball.

Same superstition.

New costume.

I am not saying people should never buy lottery tickets. Entertainment is entertainment. Somebody eventually wins jackpots. Real people have collected life-changing sums, including Mega Millions prizes above $1 billion.

Buy the ticket if that is how you choose to spend your entertainment money.

Dream.

Check the numbers.

Imagine telling your boss goodbye.

Enjoy the fantasy.

But I would keep one hand on my wallet when somebody tells me AI knows which balls are coming out of the machine.

ChatGPT can write the resignation letter I might send after winning Powerball. It cannot tell me when I will need it. That is the punchline. We built machines capable of writing software, analyzing mountains of data, translating languages and explaining advanced mathematics. Then we looked at this extraordinary technology and asked the most human question imaginable:

“Okay, genius. What are tomorrow's lottery numbers?”

The machine can give us 6 numbers.

Of course it can.

So can a fortune cookie.

So can a dartboard.

So can your dog  if you scatter numbered pieces of paper across the floor.

The miracle is not that ChatGPT can choose lottery numbers. The miracle is that after seeing odds of roughly 1 in 292 million, I can still convince myself that the right prompt might make mathematics blink.

It won't.

The lottery machine does not read prompts.

And Lady Luck does not have a ChatGPT account.

 

For readers interested in a separate line of thought, the titles in my “Brief Book Series” are available on Google Play. Read them here on Google Play or in Barnes & Noble bookstore: Brief Book Series.

 

 

Nigeria’s Federal Government Has Found Money for God While Nigerians Wait for Water

 

Nigeria is borrowing trillions, citizens are drowning in poverty, yet Abuja keeps finding billions for religion. When government funds prayers before necessities, something is dangerously wrong.

I have finally discovered one of Nigeria’s great economic miracles. We may not have enough hospitals. We may not have enough classrooms. We may not have reliable electricity. Millions of Nigerians still struggle with poverty. Government debt keeps climbing. But apparently, somewhere inside Abuja, somebody looked at this magnificent national emergency and said:

“You know what Nigeria needs right now? More government-funded religious projects.”

Amen.

Or perhaps I should say, Allahu Akbar.

Because Abuja appears determined to make sure nobody feels left out.

Tracka, BudgIT’s accountability platform, examined the 2026 federal budget and found about ₦8.05 billion earmarked for religious infrastructure: ₦6.14 billion for 52 mosque-related projects and ₦1.91 billion for 7 church projects. The International Centre for Investigative Reporting independently reported the same figures. Even more astonishing, these 59 projects sit inside a 2026 spending plan of about ₦68.3 trillion carrying a projected deficit of ₦31.45 trillion.

Read that again.

Nigeria is borrowing heavily, yet we have found room in the national wallet for churches and mosques. This is fiscal comedy wearing agbada. I can almost hear the budget meeting.

“Sir, the people need water.”

“Noted.”

“Sir, they need hospitals.”

“Very important.”

“Sir, electricity?”

“Absolutely.”

“Schools?”

“Certainly.”

“Jobs?”

“We are working on it.”

“Mosques and churches?”

“Release the money!”

And there lies the madness.

I am not attacking Christianity. I am not attacking Islam. Faith matters deeply to millions of Nigerians. Churches and mosques provide community, charity, comfort and moral guidance. But that is precisely why government should keep its political fingers out of their collection plates.

The Nigerian Constitution itself creates a clear wall. Section 10 says the government of the Federation or a state shall not adopt any religion as state religion. Yet Nigeria has developed a strange political habit: government does not officially establish a religion, but somehow taxpayers keep finding themselves financially involved in religious activities.

That is like a man announcing that he has stopped drinking while ordering another bottle “for administrative purposes.”

The problem becomes uglier when I look outside the stained-glass window. Nigeria’s own National Bureau of Statistics found in its 2022 Multidimensional Poverty Index that 63% of Nigerians—about 133 million people—were multidimensionally poor. The survey covered more than 56,000 households. That is not opposition propaganda. That is arithmetic.

A hungry child cannot eat a renovated mosque.

A woman in labor cannot receive an emergency Caesarean section from a church public-address system.

A village without clean water cannot drink holy water every morning and call the sanitation crisis solved.

And darkness does not disappear because somebody shouts, “Let there be light!” NEPA—or whatever respectable name Nigeria’s electricity troubles wear these days—still has to supply it.

This is what makes the ₦8.05 billion figure so offensive. Money has opportunity cost. Every naira spent in one place cannot simultaneously be spent somewhere else. Economists have taught this simple principle for generations, yet Nigerian budgeting sometimes behaves as if money reproduces overnight behind the Central Bank.

It does not.

The Debt Management Office reported that Nigeria’s total public debt had already reached about ₦152.40 trillion by June 30, 2025. That included roughly ₦71.85 trillion in external debt and ₦80.55 trillion in domestic debt. So this is not spare change falling from heaven. Nigeria is a country carrying enormous obligations while still budgeting billions for projects that religious congregations can finance themselves.

Then comes the familiar Nigerian plot twist: explanation.

The Office of Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu argued that its controversial allocation was not really direct religious financing. The office said the relevant amount was ₦780 million after deductions and that the money would support a youth reorientation program against drugs and crime through more than 130 churches. References to public-address systems and evangelical instruments were blamed on a technical error.

Ah, yes. The technical error. Nigeria’s most hardworking invisible civil servant. Whenever something smells strange inside official paperwork, Technical Error arrives wearing dark glasses.

“Who put that there?”

“Technical error.”

“Why does the description say this?”

“Technical error.”

“Who approved it?”

“We are investigating.”

At this rate, Technical Error deserves a pension. But even if I accept the explanation completely, another question walks through the door. Why put a public youth program inside religious allocations in the first place? If government wants to fight drug abuse, budget transparently for drug prevention. If it wants youth rehabilitation, fund the responsible public agency. If churches, mosques or civil-society groups will implement parts of the program, establish clear competitive rules, measurable outcomes, audited contracts and public reporting. Do not bury public policy inside religious expenditure and then act shocked when taxpayers smell incense.

Nigeria has been down this road before.

In 2024, President Bola Tinubu’s government approved a ₦90 billion subsidy for the 2024 Hajj pilgrimage, according to multiple contemporary reports. The decision came after the naira’s fall sharply increased pilgrimage costs. Whatever humanitarian or political argument was offered, the principle remained troubling: taxpayers were again being asked to cushion the cost of religious travel.

I keep asking the simplest question.

Why?

If I want to visit Jerusalem, why should a farmer in Benue help pay? If another Nigerian wants to perform Hajj in Mecca, why should a struggling trader in Enugu subsidize the journey?

Religion is sacred precisely because belief is personal. The moment politicians start financing faith, faith risks becoming another constituency to purchase. And Nigerian politicians understand constituencies.

A road does not vote.

A hospital bed does not attend rallies.

A borehole does not endorse candidates.

But religious communities contain millions of voters.

Suddenly the political arithmetic becomes less mysterious.

Give here.

Commission there.

Take photographs.

Shake hands with clerics.

Mention God repeatedly.

Then wait for election season.

I cannot prove that every religious allocation is designed to buy political loyalty, and it would be irresponsible to pretend otherwise. But I can say the structure creates that suspicion. When government distributes scarce public resources through politically valuable religious networks, especially as the 2027 elections approach, Nigerians are entitled to ask hard questions.

The irony is brutal. The same government tells citizens that reforms require sacrifice.

Fuel subsidy? Sacrifice.

Currency reform? Sacrifice.

Higher transportation costs? Endure.

Expensive food? Be patient.

Economic pain? Tomorrow will be better.

Then citizens open the budget and discover that sacrifice apparently has exemptions. The poor must tighten their belts while Abuja searches for another hole in its own. That is why this debate is bigger than ₦8.05 billion. It is about what government thinks government is for. Government exists to provide public goods that individuals cannot efficiently provide alone: roads, security, public health, education, water systems, infrastructure and functioning institutions.

God does not need an appropriation bill.

Citizens do.

The tragedy is that Nigeria has extraordinary religious energy. Churches overflow. Mosques fill. Prayer camps multiply. Vigils continue through the night. Nigerians pray for electricity, jobs, security, good roads, affordable food and competent government.

Then government arrives and says, in effect:

“We heard your prayers. Here is money for another religious project.”

No.

That is not an answered prayer.

That is satire writing itself.

Let congregations build their places of worship. Let believers finance pilgrimages. Let government protect everybody’s freedom to worship—or not worship—without fear. Then let Abuja do its own job.

Give Nigerians functioning hospitals.

Give children decent schools.

Give communities clean water.

Give businesses electricity.

Give young people an economy capable of rewarding work.

Give taxpayers transparent budgets.

And if ₦8.05 billion is sitting somewhere looking for something holy to do, I know a sacred cause: Try keeping Nigerians alive.

 

For readers interested in a separate line of thought, the titles in my “Brief Book Series” are available on Google Play. Read them here on Google Play or in Barnes & Noble bookstore: Brief Book Series.