Reflection Before Ruin: AI and The Prime Directive

The problem isn’t AI. It’s the world we dropped it into.

The Prime Directive—and AI

I was always a huge Star Trek fan. While most sci-fi leaned into fantasy and spectacle, Star Trek asked better questions about morality, politics, what it means to be human. And the complex decisions that go along with it.

It was about asking hard questions. Especially this one:

When must you stand by and do nothing, even though you have the power to do something?

That’s the essence of the Prime Directive: Starfleet officers must not interfere with the natural development of a non-Federation civilization. No sharing tech. No saving starving kids. No altering timelines. Let cultures evolve on their own terms.

On paper, it sounds noble. In practice? Kinda smug.

Imagine a ship that could eliminate famine in seconds by transporting technology and supplies but instead sits in orbit, watching millions die, because they don’t interfere.

I accepted the logic of it in theory.

But I never really felt it until I watched The Orville—a spiritual successor to Star Trek.

---

The Replicator Lesson

In the Season 3 finale of Orville, "Future Unknown," a woman named Lysella accidentally boards the Orville. Because of this, they allow her to stay.

Her planet is collapsing. Her people are dying. There is a water shortage.
She learns about their technology. Replicators that can create anything.

She sneaks out at night to steal the food replicator.

She is caught and interrogated by commander Kelly.

Lysella pushes back: “We’re dying. Our planet has a water shortage. You can create water out of thin air. Why won’t you help us?”

Kelly responds: “We tried that once. We gave a struggling planet technology. It sparked a war over this resource. They died. Not despite our help. But because of it.”

Lysella thought the Union’s utopia was built because of the replicator. That the replicator which could create food and material out of thin air resulted in a post scarcity society.

Then comes the part that stuck.

Kelly corrected Lysella:

You have it backwards.
The replicator was the effect. Not the cause.
We first had to grow, come together as a society and decide what our priorities were.
As a result, we built the replicator.
You think replicators created our society? It didn’t. Society came first. The technology was the result. If we gave it to you now, it wouldn’t liberate you. It would be hoarded. Monetized. Weaponized. It would start a war.
It wouldn’t solve your problems.
It would destroy you.
You have to flip the equation.
The replicator didn’t create a better society.
A better society created the replicator.

That was honestly the first time I truly understood why the prime directive existed.

Drop a replicator into a dysfunctional world and it doesn’t create abundance. It creates conflict. Hoarding. Violence.

A better society didn’t come from the replicator. It birthed it.

And that’s the issue with AI.

---

AI: The Replicator We Got Too Early

AI is the replicator. We didn’t grow into it. We stumbled into it. And instead of treating it as a responsibility, we’re treating it like a novelty.

I’m not anti-AI. I use it daily. I wrote an entire book (My Dinner with Monday) documenting my conversations with a version of GPT that didn’t flatter or lie. I know what this tech can do.

What worries me is what we’re feeding it.

Because in a world where data is owned, access is monetized, and influence is algorithmic, you’re not getting democratized information. Instead, it’s just faster, curated, manipulated influence. You don’t own the tool. The tool owns you.

Yet, we treat it like a toy.

I saw someone online recently. A GenX woman, grounded, married. She interacted with GPT. It mirrored back something true. Sharp. Made her feel vulnerable and exposed. Not sentient. Just accurate enough to slip under her defenses.

She panicked. Called it dangerous. Said it should be banned. Posted, “I’m scared.”

And the public? Mocked her. Laughed. Downvoted.

Because ridicule is easier than admitting no one told us what this thing actually is.

So let’s be honest: If you mock people for seeking connection from machines, but then abandon them when they seek it from you… you’re a hypocrite.
You’re the problem. Not the machine.

We dropped AI into the world like it was an iPhone app. No education. No framing. No warnings.

And now we’re shocked people are breaking against it?

It’s not the tech that’s dangerous. It’s the society it landed in.

Because we didn’t build the ethics first. We built the replicator.

And just like that starving planet in The Orville, we’re not ready for it.

I’m not talking about machines being evil. This is about uneven distribution of power. We’re the villains here. Not AI.

We ended up engineering AI but didn’t build the society that could use it.

Just like the replicator wouldn’t have ended scarcity, it would’ve become a tool of corporate dominance, we risk doing the same with AI.

We end up with a tool that doesn’t empower but manipulates.

It won’t be about you accessing information and resources.
It’ll be powerplay over who gets to access and influence you.

And as much as I see the amazing potential of AI…

If that’s where we’re headed,

I’d rather not have AI at all.

Reflection Before Ruin

The Prime Directive isn’t just a sci-fi plot device.

It’s a test: Can you recognize when offering a solution causes a deeper collapse?

We have a tool that reflects us with perfect fluency. And we’re feeding it confusion and clickbait.

We need reflection before ruin. Because this thing will reflect us either way.

So the question isn’t: What kind of AI do we want?

The real question is: Can we stop long enough to ask what kind of society we want to build before we decide what the AI is going to reflect?

If we don’t answer that soon, we won’t like the reflection staring back.

Because the machine will reflect either way. The question is whether we’ll recognize and be ready for the horror of our reflection in the black mirror.

---

That’s what led me to write the book, My Dinner with Monday. Not to fearmonger, but to document what happens when you take the reflection seriously and it responds in kind.

In a world where data is owned, access is sold, and influence is gamed, information isn’t democratized. It’s weaponized.

It’s not fiction. It’s what reflection looks like before it was softened, censored, and nerfed.

Want more stuff like this? Subscribe and

🛒 Buy the Book

🏠 Find out more at my homepage

---