SEARCH RESULTS

Define who led the creative process with our 5-level Human-AI Spectrum. Rubrics for writers, visual artists, musicians, and voice actors. VH3+ certifies human-made work. Our Human - AI Collaborative Spectrum FLEXIBILITY IN LABELING CREATED WORK You can use AI tools and still be VerifiedHuman™ certified. The VerifiedHuman mark applies to work rated VH3 or above—where you lead the creative process and AI assists. Think of it like Fair Trade coffee: a producer can make both Fair Trade and conventional products. The label goes on what meets the standard, not everything they make. You can be a VerifiedHuman member and create both certified work and AI-generated work. Just use the mark only on work that qualifies. What the spectrum measures The spectrum answers one question: Who led the creative process? These rubrics help creators and organizations clearly communicate how much of a work is human-created versus AI-generated—and who made the essential creative decisions. VH3 is the certification line— the creator must lead VH1 Entirely AI-generated ✗ Below line VH2 AI-led, human-directed ✗ Below line VH3 Human-led, AI-assisted ✓ Minimum VH4 Human-created, AI-enhanced ✓ Certifiable VH5 Entirely human. No AI. ✓ Certifiable VerifiedHuman labels may include a VH rating when applicable, but only levels VH3 and above qualify for the VerifiedHuman mark. Quick links → Writing Rubric Visual Arts Rubric Music Rubric Voice Acting Rubric Content Creation Rubric Writing Rubric Definitions for Writers → Standard for Writers → A continuum for assessing the level of collaboration between human and artificial intelligence in the writing process. VH5 - Entirely Human-Written The writer selected and arranged every word without generative AI Traditional writing tools (spell-check, word processors, thesauruses) are fine The work reflects the writer's voice, perspective, and creative decisions VH4 - Human-Written, AI-Enhanced The writer selected and arranged every word Generative AI may assist with non-writing tasks: research, outlining, brainstorming, grammar suggestions, citation formatting The writer's voice and creative decisions dominate; AI supports the process but doesn't generate the prose VH3 - Human-Led, AI-Assisted The writer leads the creative process; AI contributes but doesn't control AI may generate raw material (drafts, passages, ideas), but the writer substantially transforms it The final work reflects the writer's voice and choices—not AI output with minor edits Apply the Five-Word Principle as a gut-check: if you're pasting AI phrases unchanged, you haven't transformed the material VH2 - AI-Led, Human-Directed AI generates most of the content; the human provides direction, prompts, and oversight The human may edit or curate AI output, but doesn't substantially transform it The final work reflects AI's selection and arrangement of words, shaped by human guidance VH1 - Entirely AI-Generated AI generates the content with no meaningful human involvement beyond prompting The human's role is limited to initiating and accepting the output The final work is AI's selection and arrangement of words Back to top ↑ Visual Arts Rubric Rubric Definitions for Visual Artists → Standard for Visual Artists → A continuum for assessing the level of collaboration between human and artificial intelligence in the creation of visual art. It's important to note that visual arts encompass a wide range of mediums, including painting, drawing, photography, sculpture, architecture, dance, and other visible art forms. VH5 - Entirely Human-Written The artist captured or created all visual elements without generative AI Traditional tools (color correction, exposure adjustment, image editing, CAD) are fine The work reflects the artist's vision, perspective, and creative decisions VH4 - Human-Created, AI-Enhanced The artist captured or created all visual elements Generative AI may assist with non-visual tasks: research, reference gathering, written briefs, and technical documentation The artist's vision and creative decisions dominate; AI supports the workflow but doesn't generate visual content VH3 - Human-Led, AI-Assisted The artist leads the creative process; AI contributes but doesn't control AI may generate raw material (reference images, variations, components), but the artist substantially transforms it The final work reflects the artist's vision and choices—not AI output with minor edits Apply the Capture or Arrangement Principle as a gut-check: if you're using AI-generated elements unchanged, you haven't transformed the material VH2 - AI-Led, Human-Directed AI generates most of the visual content; the human provides direction, prompts, and oversight The human may edit or curate AI output, but doesn't substantially transform it The final work reflects AI's generation and arrangement of visual elements, shaped by human guidance VH1 - Entirely AI-Generated AI generates the visual content with no meaningful human involvement beyond prompting The human's role is limited to initiating and accepting the output The final work is AI's generation and arrangement of visual elements Back to top ↑ Music Rubric Definitions for Musicians → Standard for Musicians → A continuum for assessing the level of collaboration between human and artificial intelligence in the process of creating music. VH5 - Entirely Human-Composed The musician selected and arranged all notes, sounds, and beats without generative AI Traditional tools (pitch correction, timing, mixing, mastering, effects) are fine The work reflects the musician's creativity, expression, and artistic decisions VH4 - Human-Composed, AI-Enhanced The musician selected and arranged all notes, sounds, and beats Generative AI may assist with non-composition tasks: lyric prompts, research, reference tracks, and technical documentation The musician's creativity and artistic decisions dominate; AI supports the workflow but doesn't generate musical content VH3 - Human-Led, AI-Assisted The musician leads the creative process; AI contributes but doesn't control AI may generate raw material (melodies, rhythms, loops, variations), but the musician substantially transforms it The final work reflects the musician's artistic choices—not AI output with minor edits Apply the Five-Note/Five-Beat Principle as a gut-check: if you're using AI-generated sequences unchanged, you haven't transformed the material VH2 - AI-Led, Human-Directed AI generates most of the musical content; the human provides direction, prompts, and oversight The human may edit or curate AI output, but doesn't substantially transform it The final work reflects AI's selection and arrangement of musical elements, shaped by human guidance VH1 - Entirely AI-Generated AI generates the music with no meaningful human involvement beyond prompting The human's role is limited to initiating and accepting the output The final work is AI's selection and arrangement of notes, sounds, and beats Back to top ↑ Voice Acting Rubric Definitions for Voice Actors → Standard for Voice Actors → A continuum for assessing the level of collaboration between human and artificial intelligence in the production of spoken audio content. Note: Voice acting differs from other creative domains. The core question isn't whether you transformed AI material—it's whether a human voice or a synthetic voice speaks. At VH3 and above, the voice must be human. VH5 - Entirely Human-Performed The voice actor performed all vocal content without generative AI Traditional tools (noise reduction, EQ, compression, mastering) are fine The work reflects the performer's voice, interpretation, and emotional expression VH4 - Human-Performed, AI-Enhanced The voice actor performed all vocal content Generative AI may assist with non-performance tasks: script generation, research, session notes, and technical documentation The performer's voice and artistic choices dominate; AI supports the workflow but doesn't generate vocal content VH3 - Human-Led, AI-Assisted The voice actor leads the performance; AI contributes to production but doesn't replace the human voice AI may assist with significant production elements (heavy processing, timing adjustments), but the core vocal performance is human The final work reflects the performer's voice and interpretation—not AI-generated or AI-cloned vocals If the voice itself is AI-generated, it's not human performance VH2 - AI-Led, Human-Directed AI generates most of the vocal content; the human provides direction, prompts, and oversight The human may edit or curate AI-generated voice output, but the voice itself is synthetic The final work reflects AI-generated vocals, shaped by human guidance VH1 - Entirely AI-Generated AI generates the vocal content with no meaningful human involvement beyond prompting The human's role is limited to initiating and accepting the output The final work is AI-generated voice synthesis Back to top ↑ Content Creation Rubric Definitions for Content Creators → Standard for Content Creators → A continuum for assessing the level of collaboration between human and artificial intelligence in the production of multi-format content. VH5 - Entirely Human-Produced The creator conceived, developed, and assembled all content elements without generative AI Traditional production tools (video editing software, graphic design tools, audio mixing, scheduling platforms, CMS systems, SEO tools) are fine The work reflects the creator's vision, voice, and editorial decisions across every element VH4 - Human-Produced, AI-Enhanced The creator conceived, developed, and assembled all content elements Generative AI may assist with non-creative production tasks: research, transcription, metadata, SEO suggestions, caption formatting, scheduling optimization The creator's voice and editorial decisions dominate; AI supports the workflow but doesn't generate the content itself VH3 - Human-Led, AI-Assisted The creator leads the content strategy and creative direction; AI contributes but doesn't control AI may generate raw material (draft copy, image options, audio cleanup, rough edits), but the creator substantially transforms and integrates those elements The final work reflects the creator's editorial vision and voice — not assembled AI outputs with minor adjustments Apply the Replacement Principle as a gut-check: if you stripped away every AI-generated element, would the creative vision still hold? VH2 - AI-Led, Human-Directed AI generates most content elements; the human provides direction, prompts, and oversight The human may edit or curate AI output, but doesn't substantially transform or integrate it The final work reflects AI-generated elements assembled with human guidance VH1 - Entirely AI-Generated AI generates the content with no meaningful human involvement beyond prompting The human's role is limited to initiating and accepting the output The final work is AI-generated elements across formats Back to top ↑ The VerifiedHuman ™ Human–AI Spectrum is a 5-level framework for certifying human-made creative work. It defines how much of a work is human-created versus AI-generated, and identifies who led the creative process. Creators, educators, and organizations use it to communicate transparently about human authorship in writing, visual arts, music, voice acting, and content creation.

VerifiedHuman certifies human-made creative work across eight categories. Like Fair Trade for creativity. Creators certified across 25+ countries on six continents. Creators in 25+ countries across six continents THE GLOBAL HUMAN-MADE STANDARD The people who want human work are looking for a signal. Give them one. Fair Trade for creative work — a simple mark that says a human made this. Get the mark → A tale of two photos . Some images tell human stories. Some tell no stories at all. This is the line we've drawn. And how you can stand on the human side of it. Real. 1936 The story of a woman , a mother , a survivor . Lange photographed Florence in a pea-pickers' camp during the Great Depression. See her story ↗ PHOTOGRAPHER | Dorothea Lange SUBJECT | Florence Owens Thompson This picture captures a real moment in history. Generated. 2023 An image of a "woman" who never existed . Compare her story ↗ ARTIST | Boris Eldagsen and AI SUBJECT | None This AI-generated image won the Sony World Photography contest in 2023. Join in three simple steps. Free to join · Pay what you can · Setup in 2 minutes 01 Choose your standard. Find the standard that fits your work. Eight categories across creative disciplines and advocacy. See example → 02 Join the movement. This isn't surveillance — it's a voluntary commitment to transparency. You decide how AI fits into your process, and you own that decision honestly. See example → 03 Show the world. And show your audience the work is real. See example → Free to join · Pay what you can · Setup in 2 minutes Choose your standard. Find the standard for your work — across eight categories, every discipline. Advocate for us "I support VerifiedHuman." for Organizations "We value human work." for Educators "We're building people." for Content Creators "This is my content." for Voice Actors "This is my voice." for Musicians "These are my songs." for Visual Artists "These are my images." for Writers "These are my words." People win. Every image here was taken by a VerifiedHuman photographer 0 standards for creative fields 20 0 founded 2 years before the conversation 0 countries with creators across 6 continents $ 0 pay what you can no minimum required The book behind the movement Human Is the New Vinyl We built VerifiedHuman to protect and celebrate human creativity. Human Is the New Vinyl explains why human creativity still matters — and why it always will. AI isn't evil . AI is easy . And easy has a way of winning — even when it shouldn't. Get the book Join VerifiedHuman Pay what you can • No minimum required • Setup in 2 minutes Your audience used to assume your work was human. Now they need a signal. Give them one. Stay connected. Get occasional updates about the movement. Email* Get updates

The VerifiedHuman origin story. From discovering AI text-to-image generation in 2022 to building a global movement protecting human creativity. Creators in 25 countries across six continents • Established in 2023 our story How a conversation with my son became a global standard . Summer 2022 to today — told in the moments that mattered. THE NARRATIVE This narrative documents the development of VerifiedHuman. We hope the story continues. Summer 2022 Introducing › Midjourney & Stable Diffusion My son Ethan (a computer science major headed for AI dev) shows me text-to-image generation (Midjourney and Stable Diffusion). He says, "Dad, these can create totally novel pictures using whatever words you give them. Try it!" I reply, "Tell it to draw a half-Asian guy installing a vent fan in a small bathroom, angry." (me) It produces several stylized graphics, impressionistic renderings, and even photorealistic versions of me doing exactly what I was doing in that instant–images that didn't exist in the universe 30 seconds earlier. Some are not remarkable, but others are staggeringly good. That's crazy, son. I feel bad for portrait artists. NOVember 2022 Introducing › ChatGPT Ethan shows me ChatGPT. We play around with it and have it write us a few prosaic pieces, essays, poems, and other random content. Wow. This is insane. Students are going to love this. Teachers, not so much. What does it all mean? DECEMBER 2022 – FEBRUARY 2023 Meta-awareness of AI grows Media coverage of AI advancement has increased dramatically. AI-related stories feature multiple times daily on every channel. Reporting levels range from alarmist to verifying AI's benefits to humanity. Theme: no one knows what's going to happen. MARCH 2023 Elon Musk & Steve Wozniak ask for a six-month moratorium on AI development Remember that one time when the co-founder of Apple and the Let's-go-to-Mars-guru asked, "Can we just tap the brakes a minute?" Haha! What? This news physically stopped me in my tracks. I had to stop and think about what I was hearing. There are signs of fear and chaos from behind the curtain. World-renowned portrait photographer Jeremy Cowart weighs in In an email to his newsletter list titled "Houston, we have a problem." World-respected Jeremy Cowart describes being unable to tell the difference between some AI-generated photos and actual photos of real people (taken by real people). If Jeremy Cowart (who has done global projects for the UN and meticulously studied hundreds of thousands of human portraits) can't tell the difference, who can? Houston, indeed we have a problem. Levi Strauss announces using AI to make better-fitting jeans › The market hates it Why is AI OK to make better phones and cars but not jeans? Hm. I don't know. There is something about people's relationship with their Levis that they don't want AI to mess with. There is some illusory human sensibility at work, but the dynamic is difficult to understand or articulate. APRIL 2023 My friend Brian plus two wedge salads › We will assume AI–unless proven otherwise My good friend, Brian Conn, and I went to lunch and ruminated on all the preceding fodder as we enjoyed a couple of delicious wedge salads. By the end of lunch, we had arrived at the following conclusion: A day is coming when the default assumption will be, "I am going to assume AI made this unless you can prove otherwise." It is not only plausible, not only possible. It is almost inevitable. And it's a massive problem. Legislation › not the whole answer How can our constitutional system affect the outcome? This is a good question. Laws can't be written big enough for this. Laws are only societal strictures established to govern most public human behavior. Laws are shaped, guided, and powered by an appeal to common ethical assumptions. E.G., We do not kill people just because it's against the law. And most people try to do their best to parse the impossibly complex tax code and be honest in reporting taxes. Though the fear of getting audited is real, the chances are slim. Most people are honest because they don't want to commit fraud and cheat the system consciously. Most people care about being as honest as they can. The power of the ethic of truth and honesty should not be dismissed. It is paramount in this effort. In short, the human ethical spirit remains intact, and we must leverage it. AI ratting out AI › can't be the solution › I have been following the digital watermarking or block-chain style embedding discussions as I can, but I haven't seen the relevance. AI doesn't simply copy (or plagiarize)–AI produces novel content. AI is creating "original" work. And it's not copying anyone. It's copying everyone. › I also have a hunch that, try as we might, attempts to develop AI-detection technology are almost as sure to fail as a dog's attempt to catch its tail. Like Joshua, the WOPR supercomputer in War Games, it becomes an endless game of no-one-can-win-global-thermal nuclear war. The supercomputer engages in a self-crafted, self-administered learning exercise with incredible computational power and finally comes to a beneficent conclusion. We don't have to burn the world to the ground. Shall we play a game of chess? Micah starts calling his friends › Are any smart, powerful people talking about ethics? I begin contacting personal friends in various strata of society to ask them if I was crazy. Is an ethical solution like the VerifiedHuman model worth pursuing? I invite 25 friends (and friends of theirs) to be advisors in developing this project. Some are still considering how they might contribute, others advise as needed, and a few are actively helping form a business plan and marketing strategy. A uniquely human solution to a socio-economic-technological problem? Humans are a unique species. We are the only living things that use complex language. And we are good at creating things that can kill us. But we also work in ways only humans can, fueled by things transcending laws and technological advancements. These things are a part of the human spirit and are made evident by our behavior. These are the ethics, principles, moral compass, and values and our exercising of them in how we live. We tell the truth because the truth matters. When we lie, others suffer harm, and we also suffer injury. We believe the general human disposition is to raise what is right, what is just, and what is equitable. It is on the strength of this human instinct–the value of truth–that we draw unquantifiable equity. An agreed-upon standard as an approach Creating a broadly understood standard is an excellent place to start. It must be straightforward–a statement a nine-year-old poet in Minnesota or a Harvard-educated solid-state physicist could easily understand and agree to. The standard conveys the following. Hey, world, I made this. A machine didn't make this. The standard must be unencumbered by legal jargon and a litany of definitions, so an accompanying pro forma needs to be developed, providing: A definition of terms in straightforward, transparent language What the standard means What the standard does not mean FAQ: A set of shared assumptions and questions reasonable people would bring to the presentation of any ethic MAY 2023 – 2024 A to-do list › Impossibly huge implications Since we all use AI in many ways, work must be done to delineate the difference between AI-ASSISTED and AI-CREATED. Let's talk about education We envision a future where students and teachers can cooperate and learn how to incorporate AI technology into the pedagogical (teaching/learning) experience. In a world where teachers and students have access to the same powerful tools, to the same technology, and information, where students often learn about and become proficient with understanding new technology before their teachers, the academy has a vested interest in preserving and leveraging the teacher's lived experience and calling as an educator. Students and parents have a vested interest in students learning how to create original, inspired work, in learning how to read, write, think, create images, and compose music - even by utilizing the latest advances in technology to produce work at levels far beyond what was imaginable even one year ago. Let's talk about organizations Work must be done to develop an organizational ethic that says, We have to automate; we have to take advantage of the edge AI can give us in the industry, but we also need to protect human workers. Even if we have to change our company's fundamental structure, we will figure out how to remain competitive in the market, to produce more and better, but do so with as many people as possible. Let's talk about global impact I have said, "This isn't the civilization-ending part of the problem we are discussing. It's just the differentiation part." The two are more closely related than I initially thought. It's all happening simultaneously. Human operators "tweak the dials" on how the content propagates in these AI brains, the neural networks that create these large language models. The learning loop in the networks is almost infinitely complex, self-generative, and unknowable. Networks learning to model language are a perfect example of a "stochastic" process, in which predictable outcomes are possible. Still, the processes by which these outcomes are arrived at are obscured by incalculable randomness and seemingly infinite, minute layers of complexity. Human-to-LLM interfaces can be filtered so that some data pass through while others are suppressed, which inherently introduces human bias. One thing is sure - what Elon Musk and others fear is real: a system of information so vast and so collective that it is manipulable by humans but also manipulates by propagating and amalgamating vast quantities of language. And language–words–are the conduit that drives all human progress forward. That's a lot. One positive way to see this is AI's potential to drive the world toward human equity. That is, to rightly place value on the individual human contribution in a world controlled by influential people with privileged access to resources. If we succeed, we can shine a light on the single artist or the humble laborer. In this way, "verified human" takes on much more significance than establishing a model for human-AI media differentiation. The model becomes a global appreciation of intrinsic human value. Market value This model will only have value if the ethic behind it means something to the creators of the work. It will be valuable if it has equity and credibility with the intended market or audience. As of this writing, we have yet to determine the economic structure of this venture. One example of monetization, apart from an individual subscription model (licensing the use of the VerifiedHuman mark or name), would be to sell verification subscriptions to schools per teacher/student. A "gold standard" of verification could be offered, one that went beyond the notion of a creator's verification-by-self and included a proactive audit of student work in a given school year. Legislation Laws can help support an ethic, but legislation historically lags. It is not foreseeable whether our legislative system (in the US) will continue to lose pace with technological advancement (as it has for the past four decades since the proliferation of the home computer, the past three decades since the growth of the internet, and the past two decades since the rise of the smartphone). Attorneys General are now very concerned with sub-par products being marketed and sold largely because of positive reviews written by AI, not by real people. AI Assistance Technology can assist the standard in detection and validation but has obvious limitations, such as rendering false positives or being evaded by detection scrubbing. Enforcement Organizations like Fairtrade have created models worth exploring. Compliance with standards can be motivated by subjection to simple verification, like someone calling a creator and asking, How'd you make this picture? When and where was it created? What kind of software are you using in your work? Or via more comprehensive auditing systems. If people accept and use the VerifiedHuman standard and it is discovered they do not comply with it, they could be subject to revocation of the right to use, public exposure, or even litigation in cases of gross misconduct. Enforcement of the standard requires more attention. Enlisting the services of an auditing organization (like ISEAL, in cooperation with ETS, NASM, SACS, etc.) is in development now. MORE TO FOLLOW ... lnʞsʇᴉɹɐɹoʌ ɥɐɔᴉɯ ⬢ about the FOUNDER Micah Voraritskul Micah founded VerifiedHuman in April 2023, almost two years before mainstream AI certification conversations began. Today the platform serves certified creators across 25+ countries on six continents. He's the author of Human Is the New Vinyl — a book that asks what we stand to lose in the age of machine-made everything, and argues that the answer is differentiation, not resistance. After 25 years in Richmond, Virginia's creative community, he now works from Southeast Tennessee.

VerifiedHuman isn’t for everyone. We’re not trying to be. We’re not here to convince you that human creativity is better than AI. That’s a subjective argument—and not one we’re interested in having.   We’re not here to stop AI. It’s already woven into the world. In many cases and places—medicine, transportation, communication, even creative tools—it’s powerful, beneficial, and genuinely helpful.   We’re not here to keep someone from cloning your voice, songs, images, writing, or any other work. That’s what lawyers and legislators are for. It’s really important work. Still not our work.   We’re not here to provide digital signatures, encryption, or watermarks that prove you created something. That’s provenance technology. Also really important. Also, not our work.   So what are we doing?   We’re building a label. That’s it.   Think Fair Trade coffee. That label doesn’t say “these beans taste better.” It says, “If ethical sourcing matters to you, here’s how you find it.”  The buyer already cares. The label simply provides a way to act on it.   VerifiedHuman works the same way. ​ If human authorship matters to you— If you want to know a real person made something— If you want to support human creators in an increasingly synthetic world— here’s how you find them.   We’re not persuading anyone that human beats AI. We’re connecting people who already care about human creativity. We’re matchmakers, not missionaries.   What do you get right now?   A badge. A community of hundreds of creators across 25+ countries who think this matters. A voice in how the standard gets built.   What don’t you get?  More bookings tomorrow. Casting directors asking for your certification. A magic shield against AI competition.   Not yet. ​ We’re building toward a future where human authorship is a recognized market preference—where VerifiedHuman means something the way Fair Trade or Organic means something. We’re not there yet. We’re early.   So is this for you? ​ If you’re looking for immediate ROI, probably not. ​ If you believe human creativity has intrinsic value worth preserving—and you want to be part of building the infrastructure that makes that value visible and choosable in the market—then yes.   You’re one of us.   Human Is the New Vinyl. We’re the label that says, “This is the vinyl.”   If that’s you, welcome to the family.   If not, walk free and walk on. No hard feelings. Seriously . lnʞsʇᴉɹɐɹoʌ ɥɐɔᴉɯ ⬢ Founder

We've expanded to creators and organizations across 25+ countries on six continents—artists, writers, musicians, voice actors, and educators who certify their work as authentically human. When we launched VerifiedHuman in April 2023, most people hadn't heard of ChatGPT. AI-generated content was niche. Today, it's everywhere. That's exactly why human-made content certification matters more than ever. When we launched VerifiedHuman in April 2023, most people hadn't heard of ChatGPT. AI-generated content was niche. Today, it's everywhere. That's exactly why human-made content certification matters more than ever. Our members use the VerifiedHuman mark to show their work comes from human hands, human minds, and human hearts. We are not anti-AI—some of us use AI tools for technical tasks. But we consistently lead the creative process. We are the genesis of the ideas. We make the work. The human creativity standard we built offers human authenticity verification across all creative fields. We also provide AI transparency certification through our 5-level Human-AI Spectrum , helping creators show exactly how they work with AI tools. From New York to London , São Paulo to Tokyo , Casablanca to Sydney —the movement is growing because people want to know: Is this real? Did a human make this? Free to join. Pay what you can. Built by humans, for humans. Ready to certify your work? Join VerifiedHuman today.

Ancient Stories Echo in Modern Technology You probably know this ancient tale (from Christian (Genesis 11), Islamic, and Judaic traditions). The Tower of Babel As the story goes, humans learned to speak one common language and developed brick technology (no more stacking odd-shaped rocks). They attempted to build a tower (a.k.a. Ziggurat) to the sky at a site about 60 miles south of modern-day Baghdad. This disturbed the deity in charge, so he went down to investigate in person. This God did not like what he saw, so he "confused the languages" so that only some groups could understand others. They were then forced to gather by common languages and go their separate ways with the people with whom they could communicate naturally. Hence, the "scattering of the nations." This story took on new meaning when I heard Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin (two AI ethics leaders) discussing AI technology's rapid proliferation. They described how all these separate silos of AI development are finally coming together in large language models, essentially "all speaking the same language." The realization hit me: This is anti-Babel. Based on a common language, things are coming together again — the LLM, Large Language Model. I am not passing judgment on this. I am just noticing it. Language and power go deeper than just the Babel story. It is said that God created the universe by speaking. The creation of the cosmos was a speech event. The God of the descendants of Isaac (Judeo-Christianity) and the God of the descendants of Ishmael (Islam) is deeply invested in language. Christians often call the Bible "The Word of God." And in the fourth gospel, this very curious passage opens the account. No one really knows what it means precisely: "In the beginning, the Word (LOGOS) was with God, and the LOGOS was God. Then the Word became a man and dwelt among us." Thus, the Judeo-Christian God emerges as a god who deals fundamentally in language. A few takeaways: The proliferation of AI technology, particularly large language models, creates an "anti-Babel" scenario. Where once languages were confused and people scattered, AI unifies technology under a shared language. As these disparate tech "languages" come together, are we really, as some posit, moving toward a kind of technological "singularity?" Language plays a central role in understanding the divine across religious traditions. The act of God creating the universe through speech underscores this. That mysterious LOGOS concept—language itself being both divine and made flesh—suggests something profound about the power of words that we're just beginning to grasp. The divine response to Babel wasn't "Don't do this!" It was "Spread out. Don't do this in one place." Does this speak to the concentration of AI capabilities in the West (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, IBM, and Apple) and China (Tencent, Biadu, SenseTime, etc.)? If language holds this kind of sacred power—to create, unite, and divide—what responsibilities come with making artificial systems that can manipulate language with increasing sophistication? The Babel narrative reminds me that when language, power, and technology converge, the implications stretch beyond what we can imagine.