From Revolution to AI Revolution: George Washington’s Wisdom in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

“The Lansdowne Portrait of George Washington (1796) by Gilbert Stuart, depicting Washington standing and gesturing with one hand. Image by Wikimeida Commons

George Washington strode onto the world stage as a revolutionary hero and left as a legend. Imagine, for a moment, America’s first president peering across time into our era of algorithms and automation. What would this founding father – a man of the 18th century Enlightenment – think about artificial intelligence (AI) in the 21st century? This blog post bridges centuries, exploring Washington’s origin story and values, and speculating how his guiding principles might apply to today’s AI revolution. From his enduring legacy as the “Father of His Country” to the possibilities and pitfalls of GPT-4 and beyond, we’ll consider how Washington’s ethos could inform the balance between innovation and governance in places like Hastings, Minnesota, and the world at large.

George Washington’s Origin Story and Enduring Legacy

George Washington (1732–1799) was born into colonial Virginia society and grew from a surveyor and soldier into the pivotal leader of a new nation. He first made his name commanding troops in the French and Indian War and later, against all odds, led the Continental Army to victory in the American Revolutionary War en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org. After eight hard years of struggle, including brutal winters at places like Valley Forge, Washington emerged as a unifying figure revered for his fortitude and leadership. In 1789, he became the first President of the United States, serving two terms from 1789 to 1797 en.wikipedia.org.

Washington’s legacy is monumental. He is often called the “Father of his Country” – and not just because he was the first president en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia.org. His personal character set a standard for integrity, courage, and self-discipline in public life en.wikipedia.org. His former general Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee famously eulogized him as “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” praising his humility, justice, and devotion to duty en.wikipedia.org. Indeed, Washington cemented his legacy by relinquishing power when he could have been king. At the end of the Revolution, he resigned his military commission and returned to private life, an act so unprecedented that Britain’s King George III said if Washington truly gave up power, “he would be the greatest man in the world” en.wikipedia.org. Later, after two terms as president, Washington again stepped aside voluntarily, establishing the tradition (eventually a constitutional limit) that American presidents should not hold office for life en.wikipedia.org. These acts of restraint and service over personal ambition stunned the monarchies of Europe en.wikipedia.org and became a cornerstone of Washington’s enduring legacy of republican virtue.

Washington’s story is thus one of a patriot who valued liberty over power and principle over personal gain. He helped design a new government and then proved that its leaders must ultimately answer to the people. The capital city bears his name, his likeness graces our currency, and countless monuments (from Washington, D.C. to small town squares) honor him. More than two centuries later, generations continue to find inspiration in his life. But Washington’s legacy is not just marble statues and lofty titles – it’s the set of values he exemplified and enshrined. To understand how he might view artificial intelligence today, we must first grasp those core beliefs in his own words.

A Leader’s Guiding Principles: Washington’s Values in His Own Words

George Washington was a product of the Enlightenment and had deep convictions about knowledge, virtue, and governance. Through letters, speeches, and actions, he consistently promoted certain key principles. Here are a few of Washington’s guiding beliefs – in his words – that shine light on how he might approach modern challenges:

• Knowledge and Education: Washington believed an informed citizenry was vital for the republic’s success. In his first annual address to Congress (1790), he urged lawmakers to promote institutions of education, stating “there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of Science and Literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness” avalon.law.yale.edu. He wanted Americans to be enlightened, arguing that public opinion in a democracy must be educated and informed. In his Farewell Address (1796), he reinforced this by calling for “institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge” so that “public opinion should be enlightened” avalon.law.yale.edu. Translation: Washington saw knowledge as power – not for elites alone, but for all people – and viewed education as the bedrock of a free society.

• Integrity and Virtue: Personal character was paramount to Washington. A biographer noted that “the great big thing stamped across that man is character” – meaning integrity, honesty, courage, self-discipline, and respect for others en.wikipedia.org. Washington tried to lead by example, emphasizing civic virtue (sacrificing personal interest for the common good) and ethical conduct. “Virtue or morality,” he wrote, “is a necessary spring of popular government” avalon.law.yale.edu. He believed that for the new American government to succeed, its leaders and citizens alike must act with honor and integrity. In short: Washington would insist that any powerful tool (or leader) must be guided by strong moral principles.

• National Unity and the Public Good: Having fought to unite thirteen fractious colonies, Washington was a fierce advocate for unity. He warned against divisive factions and regionalism. In his Farewell Address, he implored Americans to cherish their Union and to avoid political extremes that could tear the young nation apart avalon.law.yale.edu, avalon.law.yale.edu. He governed seeking consensus and the common good, not personal or party gain. This focus on unity and “brotherly affection” was tied to his belief that the government’s purpose is to serve all the people. Thus: Washington would likely view any new innovation (like AI) through the lens of whether it strengthens the nation and benefits the public as a whole – rather than exacerbating divisions or serving only a narrow interest.

• Respect for the Rule of Law and Caution with Power: Washington consistently showed restraint in the use of power. He respected the Constitution and republican institutions, establishing precedents of limited presidential tenure and civilian control of the military. He believed in a government of laws, not of any single individual’s will. His willingness to step down from authority demonstrated his view that leaders are temporary guardians of the people’s trust, not owners of it en.wikipedia.org. What this means: Washington would likely be cautious about any entity (be it a person, or perhaps an AI system) accumulating too much unchecked power. He would ask: does it operate within proper bounds and accountability?

• Embrace of Innovation (with Prudence): While rooted in classical virtues, Washington was no enemy of progress. He was, after all, a farmer and entrepreneur who experimented with new crops and technologies at his Mount Vernon estate. As president, he encouraged “new and useful inventions” to advance agriculture, manufacturing, and connectivity in the young United States avalon.law.yale.edu. He even supported early infrastructure projects (like canal systems) to spur commerce and unity across the states. Washington saw innovation as “expedient” for the nation’s prosperity avalon.law.yale.edu. However, he coupled this with prudence – innovations should serve the common defense and welfare, and be accompanied by what he called “due attention” and wisdom avalon.law.yale.edu. Inference: Washington would likely approach AI as he did other innovations: with an open mind to its benefits for society, yet with careful deliberation to ensure it truly serves humanity’s interests.

These principles – knowledge for all, virtuous leadership, unity, lawful limits on power, and prudent progress – form the moral compass Washington left us. They offer a template for how he might grapple with issues unimaginable in his time. So with these values in mind, let’s travel in our imagination: How might George Washington react to artificial intelligence if he were alive today?

Imagining Washington’s Reaction to Artificial Intelligence

What is AI? For a man of the 18th century, the idea of machines “thinking” might sound like science fiction. We can imagine an astonished Washington watching a computer carry out tasks that would have required a human mind in his day – reading and writing text, recognizing faces, making decisions. Artificial intelligence, at its core, is when machines are designed to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as learning from data, making decisions, or conversing in natural language.

Upon grasping this concept, Washington’s initial reaction might be awe at human ingenuity. Here is a general who relied on handwritten letters and horseback messengers, seeing in AI a tool that can analyze information in seconds and communicate across the globe instantly. Washington had lived through transformative inventions of his own era (for instance, he was aware of improvements in agriculture, weaponry, and even early designs for hot-air balloons). He was not a Luddite; in fact, he showed curiosity and support for useful new technology of his time avalon.law.yale.edu. It’s reasonable to think Washington would marvel at AI as a “useful invention” of our age – one with the potential to improve lives, much as the innovations he championed improved farming or navigation in the 1790s.

Yet, Washington’s admiration would be tempered by his practical wisdom and caution. He might ask: To what end is this intelligence applied? If George Washington were to evaluate AI, he would likely do so through the prism of his core beliefs:

• Does AI advance knowledge and enlightenment for the people? Given his conviction that an informed public is essential to liberty, Washington might be excited by AI’s potential to spread knowledge. AI can sift through vast libraries of information and help humans solve complex problems. Modern AI assistants (like the GPT-4 language model) can educate and inform people on almost any topic. Washington, who once supported the idea of a national university and libraries for educating citizens, could see AI as a powerful extension of that mission – a tool to help enlighten public opinion and educate the masses avalon.law.yale.edu. If an AI can help a student in Hastings learn world history, or help a farmer in Minnesota predict weather patterns, Washington might nod in approval, seeing technology serving the “public happiness” through knowledge avalon.law.yale.edu.

• Does AI uphold or threaten moral virtues and integrity? Washington would scrutinize whether AI is used ethically. He believed that character and virtue must guide public life. In today’s terms, he might inquire: Are AI systems being used honestly and justly? Or are they used to deceive, manipulate, or violate rights? Washington warned in his Farewell Address that dishonesty and immorality in government would erode the republic. If he learned, for example, that AI can create fake images or misinformation (so-called “deepfakes” or propaganda bots), he would be concerned. Such misuse could mislead citizens – the opposite of the enlightened public discourse he valued avalon.law.yale.edu. He might draw a parallel to his own time’s dangers: just as demagogues and foreign propagandists could mislead the public in the 1790s, AI-driven disinformation could mislead people today. Washington would likely insist that AI be developed and deployed with transparency, truthfulness, and respect for rights. In other words, he’d want the “indispensable supports” of morality in government to extend into our handling of AI.

• Does AI strengthen unity and the common good, or fuel division? One of Washington’s gravest fears was political factionalism tearing apart the nation. Modern AI has a dual edge here. On one hand, AI can personalize news and social media feeds – which, if unchecked, can create echo chambers of extreme views. Washington, who cautioned against “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his Farewell Address, might be alarmed if AI algorithms were amplifying partisan division or social unrest. He would likely be critical of any technology that isolates people into factions or spreads “ill-founded jealousies”. On the other hand, AI could be harnessed to find common ground – for example, analyzing public opinions to help policymakers understand what unites people, or improving public services for everyone. As a unifier, Washington would encourage uses of AI that bring citizens together and serve all communities impartially. We can imagine him supporting AI-driven improvements in, say, healthcare or disaster response that benefit the nation broadly, much as he supported infrastructure projects to knit the country together in his time.

• Is AI controlled by proper authority and laws? Washington’s respect for rule of law means he’d insist that AI remain under human constitutional control. The idea of an autonomous machine making life-and-death decisions (such as in warfare or policing) without human oversight would likely disturb him. Washington, a former general, understood the importance of chain of command and accountability. He’d probably argue that AI should be an aide to human decision-makers, not a replacement for their judgment – especially in government. He might say: AI may be powerful, but it must always answer to the laws and values of the republic. He would want clear oversight to prevent any “runaway” use of AI that could infringe on people’s liberties. In modern terms, he might advocate for regulations or a framework of accountability ensuring AI tools are used within the bounds of the Constitution and civil rights.

• Does AI represent a wise and prudent advancement? Ever the practical statesman, Washington would weigh AI’s benefits versus its risks. He was optimistic about technology’s potential – for example, endorsing scientific farming techniques in his day – but he was also cautious about unintended consequences. If he sat in a modern cabinet meeting about AI, Washington might ask for evidence: How will this technology improve lives? What safeguards are in place? He would likely support AI in fields like medicine (imagine his relief if AI could rapidly develop a cure for a disease like smallpox that plagued his troops) or transportation (he championed better roads and canals; today he might praise AI managing traffic or improving logistics). But if an AI application seemed frivolous or dangerous, Washington’s prudent side would emerge. He’d say, in essence, let’s not adopt new tools blindly – we must ensure they truly serve a valuable end for society, echoing his view that government’s measures should answer the people’s needs, not create new burdens avalon.law.yale.edu.

In summary, Washington’s likely reaction to AI would be a blend of curiosity, cautious optimism, and ethical vigilance. He’d be fascinated by the strides in human knowledge that AI represents, seeing it as part of the continual progress he hoped America would embrace. But he would also be on guard to ensure this new form of power is wielded with the same prudence and virtue he demanded of any authority. To make this more concrete, let’s delve into a specific scenario: what might Washington think of the latest AI models making headlines today, and the trajectory of this technology?

Washington Meets GPT-4: Founding Wisdom on Modern AI Advances

To bring George Washington’s speculative perspective into sharper focus, consider one of today’s most advanced AI systems: GPT-4. This is a state-of-the-art language AI (developed in 2023) that can understand and generate human-like text, even solve problems or pass academic exams. It’s a descendant of a series of “Generative Pre-trained Transformer” models that have rapidly progressed in recent years. For context, the first GPT was introduced in 2018, and by 2023, GPT-4 had achieved astonishing capabilities en.wikipedia.orgarxiv.org.

What would Washington make of GPT-4, a machine that can seemingly “think” in words? Firstly, he’d likely be impressed by its broad knowledge and utility. GPT-4 has been tested on all sorts of professional and academic challenges – and it performs at a very high level. In fact, when given a simulated bar exam (the test lawyers take), GPT-4 scored around the top 10% of test-takers, whereas its predecessor GPT-3.5 had been in the bottom 10% openai.com. In other words, this AI can pass difficult exams and answer complex questions, from legal puzzles to medical queries, with near human-level proficiency. Washington valued education and expertise; to see an AI attain such mastery across domains might evoke the same admiration he had for Renaissance thinkers or military strategists of his own time. It showcases the “skill and genius” of the people who created it – qualities he explicitly praised and wanted America to cultivate avalon.law.yale.edu.

We can imagine Washington listening to how GPT-4 was built – through “deep learning” on massive datasets. The concept might be explained to him like this: GPT-4 was trained by processing billions of words of text, learning patterns through a computational process not entirely unlike how a student learns language by reading books. Modern deep learning techniques, using multi-layered neural networks, have enabled breakthroughs in pattern recognition (letting AIs recognize images, speech, etc.) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Washington, ever the advocate for science, would likely appreciate the intense human innovation that went into this AI. The collaborative effort of researchers and engineers to push the boundaries of knowledge would resonate with his belief in supporting scientific progress avalon.law.yale.edu.

However, Washington would also pepper the discussion with pointed questions. For example: Is GPT-4 reliable and truthful? He might have heard that these AI models, while incredibly advanced, can sometimes err or even produce misleading information (what today we call “AI hallucinations” or factual mistakes). Washington might draw a parallel to an advisor who is brilliant but occasionally overconfident – useful, but in need of supervision. He believed in consulting experts (recall, he formed a Cabinet of knowledgeable advisors like Hamilton and Jefferson), but he also believed the leader must ultimately filter advice through sound judgment. So, Washington might regard GPT-4 as an adviser or tool – one that can analyze, draft, and propose – but not as an infallible oracle. He would likely urge that any AI’s output be verified and vetted by humans with wisdom and values. In effect, he might treat GPT-4 like a very capable assistant: tremendously helpful for drafting a state of the union address or analyzing economic data, but always under the watchful eye of a responsible official who ensures the information is accurate and aligned with the nation’s principles.

Another angle: Where is this technology heading? If told that some experts see systems like GPT-4 as early sparks of artificial general intelligence (AGI) – meaning, AI that could eventually match human cognitive abilities broadly – Washington’s cautious side would stir. Researchers have noted that GPT-4 can solve novel problems in math, coding, medicine, law and more, and that its performance is “strikingly close to human-level” across many tasks arxiv.org. Some have even suggested it might be viewed as an “early (yet still incomplete) version” of a general AI arxiv.org. For Washington, who fought to birth a nation predicated on human liberty and dignity, the notion of a machine inching towards human-like intelligence would be profound.

He might respond with a mix of hope and caution. On one hand, if AI grows more generally intelligent, its ability to help humanity could be enormous – solving problems from curing diseases to managing economies. Washington was a long-term thinker (he often thought about how his actions would set precedent for generations), so he might encourage us to envision how future AI could contribute to human progress if guided correctly. On the other hand, he would caution against unchecked development. As someone who meticulously built structures to support democracy (frameworks, checks and balances), Washington would likely advise that as AI becomes more powerful, our ethical and governance frameworks for AI must strengthen in tandem. He might say: “We steered this republic with a Constitution; perhaps it’s time to consider a charter or compass to steer how AI develops too.”

In contemporary terms, Washington might support initiatives to ensure AI remains “aligned” with human values – echoing OpenAI’s own efforts to align GPT-4 with user intentions and ethical guardrails openai.com. He’d applaud the pursuit of safety and reliability in AI systems, much as he valued precautions and training in the military to prevent misfires and accidents. Washington knew that power without control could be ruinous; whether that power is political or digital, the principle stands.

George Washington, in 1776 attire, enjoys a quiet moment with coffee on the patio of Froth & Cork in Hastings, Minnesota — a timeless statesman reflecting on modern challenges in the age of artificial intelligence.

The Role of AI in Government: A Founding Father’s Perspective

One of the most intriguing questions for our time is how artificial intelligence should intersect with governance. Governments around the world, including local administrations in states like Minnesota, are experimenting with AI to improve public services – from using chatbots to help citizens access information, to algorithms that optimize traffic flow and utility usage. Let’s put on our “George Washington thinking cap” and explore how he might view AI’s role in government, both as a tool for administration and as a subject of policy itself.

1. AI as a Tool for Better Governance: Washington was a practical leader who valued efficiency and effectiveness in government. He believed the “welfare of our country is the great object” of public service avalon.law.yale.edu. If AI can make government more responsive and effective, Washington would likely support its responsible adoption. Consider the ways AI is already being used in government operations today: analyzing data to spot trends (like areas prone to floods or disease outbreaks), automating routine paperwork, or even assisting in drafting reports and legislation. These are modern extensions of what Washington did in his time – he collected data on troop provisions, maintained meticulous records, and relied on timely information to make decisions. AI could do this on a far grander scale.

In fact, all levels of government in the U.S. have started using AI to improve decision-making and service delivery, while emphasizing ethics and accountability ncsl.org. A recent analysis found that a majority of federal and state agencies are exploring or using AI solutions for tasks such as improving citizen services, managing data, and aiding policy decisions ncsl.orgncsl.org. Washington would likely be heartened to hear that these efforts focus on “improving efficiency, decision-making and the delivery of government services” for the public ncsl.org. Imagine an AI system in Hastings City Hall that helps allocate budget funds by analyzing which community programs have the best outcomes, or a system at a state level that predicts maintenance needs for roads and bridges before they become failures. These align with Washington’s own interest in internal improvements and infrastructure for the young nation (he once championed building roads and canals to connect communities). AI could be the contemporary parallel – a means to knit together data and needs across a community or country, making government more proactive and efficient.

Washington, as a man who presided over the Constitutional Convention, also knew the value of good administration. He would, however, ensure that human judgment and compassion remain in the loop. He would likely advise today’s public officials to use AI as an aid, not a crutch. For example, if an AI system flags certain citizens as at risk or eligible for assistance, Washington would encourage officials to follow up with human-led outreach, reflecting the humane and just governance he practiced (his administration set up some of the first federal welfare programs for veterans and the poor). In his eyes, AI could crunch numbers, but elected leaders and civil servants must add the heart and context behind policies. This resonates with modern thinking that AI in government should augment, not replace, human servants so that empathy and common sense guide final decisions – principles Washington would surely echo.

2. Ensuring AI Respects Democratic Values: Washington might also concern himself with setting boundaries and guidelines for AI use in government. He was the first to hold executive power under the Constitution, and he carefully walked a line to respect that Constitution’s limits. If AI algorithms were to be used in areas like law enforcement (say, predictive policing) or judiciary (sentencing recommendations), Washington would insist they operate under the same rule of law and rights that any official must obey. No AI should be allowed to violate privacy without authorization, discriminate against individuals, or exercise power arbitrarily.

Today, many policymakers are indeed grappling with these issues, crafting AI ethics guidelines and laws. The conversation might remind Washington of the early debates on the Bill of Rights – ensuring citizens’ freedoms in the face of powerful institutions. It is telling that the White House in recent years released a “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights,” outlining principles to protect civil rights and promote democratic values in automated systems brookings.edu. This blueprint calls for equitable, transparent, and accountable AI, echoing exactly the kind of high standards Washington would set. He would likely commend such efforts to “encourage more transparent and trustworthy” AI decisions in government brookings.edu. For a leader who held honesty and public trust as sacred, the idea of transparency in how AI makes decisions would be non-negotiable. Washington might even recommend something akin to an oversight council (not unlike how he had a council of advisors) to continually review how government agencies use AI, ensuring these technologies serve the people’s interests and do not stray into tyrannical or unjust behaviors.

3. AI in Defense and National Security: Given Washington’s background as Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, we should consider his perspective on AI in the military and security realm. Washington believed strongly in preparedness – “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace,” he told Congress avalon.law.yale.edu. He would thus be keenly interested in how AI might strengthen national defense if used wisely (for example, AI systems that can quickly analyze intelligence to detect threats, or autonomous systems that might protect soldiers by taking on dangerous tasks). However, Washington also respected the ethics of war and civilian control. He would likely be wary of lethal autonomous weapons systems making kill decisions without human oversight, as that could violate the moral restraint and accountability he believed officers should have. Remember, this was a general who stopped his troops from unnecessarily cruel tactics and who famously returned a captured spy (Major John André) to the British for a proper trial instead of summarily punishing him. Washington would insist that humans remain morally responsible for any life-and-death decisions, AI or not. In a modern policy debate, he might support something like an international agreement on AI arms control, akin to rules of war he implicitly followed.

On the intelligence front, Washington ran an effective spy network during the Revolution, utilizing cryptography and secret agents – the cutting edge intelligence techniques of his era. He might find AI-driven cyber intelligence and code-breaking a natural evolution of that practice. If AI could help uncover plots or prevent attacks, he’d see that as a boon to security. But true to form, he’d set clear rules of engagement: AI should not be used to trample the freedoms he fought for. Surveillance AI, for instance, should be limited by law to protect privacy, just as Washington’s own surveillance (spies) was targeted strictly at enemy armies, not his own citizens. His litmus test might be, does this use of AI protect our liberty and security, or endanger them? – always aiming to secure the former without sacrificing the latter.

AI and Government in Harmony: A Washington-Inspired Vision for the Future

If George Washington could advise us today, he might articulate a vision for how artificial intelligence and government can co-exist and collaborate for the public good. Using his 18th-century eloquence to address a 21st-century challenge, one could imagine him crafting something akin to another “Farewell Address,” this time about technology. Here’s what that vision might entail, distilled into key points:

1. AI as a Servant of the People: Washington would remind us that just as the government is the servant of its citizens (not the master), so too must AI remain a servant to humanity. The ultimate purpose of deploying AI in society should be to enhance the well-being, knowledge, and freedoms of the people. In practical terms, he’d likely endorse AI projects that clearly benefit citizens – whether it’s making city services in Hastings more efficient, helping doctors predict and prevent diseases, or reducing bureaucratic red tape for small businesses. He might highlight examples: an AI system that helps local police allocate patrols more effectively to keep neighborhoods safe (so long as it’s applied without bias), or an educational AI that tutors students one-on-one in subjects where they struggle, embodying his belief in diffusion of knowledge. Washington’s criteria: if it helps Americans live safer, smarter, or more prosperous lives – and does so justly – it’s worth pursuing. If it doesn’t meet that bar, we should question it.

2. Upholding Democratic Values and Rights: Any coexistence of AI and government must be bounded by respect for rights and human dignity – an area where Washington’s voice would be firm. He might say that however powerful our technology becomes, we must never allow it to erode the fundamental freedoms and checks on power that the Constitution provides. For example, if AI is used in judicial proceedings, Washington would insist on the right to appeal to a human judge and jury; if used in law enforcement, he’d insist on probable cause and oversight. The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights issued in the U.S. recently, which covers principles like safety, nondiscrimination, data privacy, and human alternatives brookings.edu, is a manifestation of exactly what Washington would counsel: that we encode our values into our technologies. He might even call for citizens and local leaders to engage in this process – much as early Americans debated and demanded their Bill of Rights, communities today should have a say in how AI is adopted around them. Public hearings in Minnesota’s legislature about AI ethics, for instance, would likely get a thumbs-up from him as an exercise in self-governance over new challenges.

3. Education and Adaptation: Washington emphasized education in his era; for ours, he would likely stress AI literacy. To ensure AI and society thrive together, people must understand the technology to some degree. Washington might be pleased to see programs aiming to educate the public and government workers about AI’s capabilities and limits whitehouse.gov. He might encourage schools to teach not only history and civics (which he valued) but also the basics of computer science and critical thinking about AI. An “enlightened public opinion” avalon.law.yale.edu in 2025 includes understanding how an algorithm works, how it might be biased, and how to use it wisely. This empowers citizens and officials alike to harness AI for good and to spot abuses. In Hastings, this could mean workshops for city employees on AI tools or public forums for residents about the city’s new AI-driven initiatives. Such transparency and engagement echo Washington’s belief that the public should “know, and value their own rights” and be vigilant against any encroachments avalon.law.yale.edu – updated for the digital age by knowing and asserting their rights in an AI context (like the right to explanation if an AI makes a decision about them).

4. Continuous Moral Oversight: Finally, Washington would likely argue that the job of integrating AI into society isn’t a one-and-done task, but an ongoing duty – much like the maintenance of freedom itself. “There is a need for constant vigilance,” he might say, “that this new power remains our instrument and not our idol.” In practice, he’d support oversight bodies or ethics committees at various levels of government to review AI uses regularly. Perhaps he’d propose a special commission (akin to how he established the first cabinet departments) devoted to science and technology ethics, advising Congress and the President. At the local level, a city council might have an “AI advisory board” that includes technologists, ethicists, and citizen representatives. This ensures a broad set of eyes on the impact of AI, reflecting Washington’s own inclusive leadership style where he sought counsel widely and encouraged “wise and prudent” decision-making avalon.law.yale.edu.

5. Innovation with Responsibility: Washington’s vision of the future would almost certainly embrace innovation – he was inherently forward-looking, as seen in his support for exploration, westward development, and scientific progress in the early United States. He would likely celebrate the innovators and entrepreneurs pushing AI forward (perhaps viewing them as today’s equivalent of Benjamin Franklin or the ingenious inventors of his time). But he would pair his praise with a reminder: with great innovation comes great responsibility. Washington might paraphrase one of his own maxims for the AI era: “Labors for the public good are the most valuable,” thus AI innovators and policymakers should channel their efforts toward solutions that uplift society avalon.law.yale.edu. If AI is headed toward even greater capabilities, Washington’s advice would be to lead that journey with our highest values at the helm – ensuring that as AI grows smarter, humanity grows wiser in guiding it.

Conclusion: Timeless Leadership in a Technological Age

Standing at the dawn of the American experiment, George Washington likely could not have imagined the world we live in now – a world of electric grids, computers, and artificial intelligence. Yet, across the chasm of time, his words and deeds speak to us with surprising relevance. Washington’s core belief in liberty, knowledge, unity, and ethical governance provides a compass as we navigate the uncharted waters of AI. His life teaches that embracing progress and guarding principles are not opposing actions, but complementary ones. He led a fledgling nation through its first great transition, and in doing so, showed how to marry innovation with integrity.

For readers in Hastings, Minnesota, and communities everywhere, Washington’s example is a call to action. It reminds local leaders that even as we adopt cutting-edge tools to improve our cities – whether optimizing traffic with smart algorithms or using AI chatbots to assist residents – we must anchor these advances in our community’s values and needs. It reminds citizens that vigilance and engagement are as necessary now as in 1776: we should ask questions about how AI is used, demand transparency, and push for uses of technology that make our lives better without compromising our rights or dignity.

In the end, one suspects Washington would view artificial intelligence much like he viewed the young American republic: as a powerful force with the potential for great good, provided it is thoughtfully governed. He might even see in our quest to manage AI a reflection of the very struggle he and the founders undertook – to create systems that amplify the best in humanity and check the worst. It’s a new arena, but the ethos required is the same. As we shape the future of AI in government and society, we can draw wisdom from Washington’s legacy: lead with values, learn constantly, unite for the common good, and never shy away from the hard work of ensuring that our tools – like our governments – remain firmly of, by, and for the people.

In Washington’s own words, spoken long ago yet fitting for us now, “the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government,” was entrusted to the hands of the American people avalon.law.yale.edu. Today, the future of AI and its harmony with our civic life is likewise entrusted to us. It’s our turn to carry that sacred fire forward – with prudence, courage, and an unwavering commitment to the ideals that George Washington held dear. Let us rise to the occasion, so that if the General were watching, he’d nod in approval at how wisely and justly we forge ahead in this new era.