👉 Art by Carl Bond

🦾 Carl Bond’s Archive about AI — Public Practice Guide

Carl lives in Olympia, Washington.

Carl is an AI enthusiast.

Carl has a motto: with AI, even common, ordinary folk should succeed.

What does “to succeed” mean? If intelligence becomes available everywhere, all the more reason to find that break, a peace that we all long for, to walk around the park with it: watch the birds, notice the green of the grass, let a thought unfold at your own pace.

A future with AI and a basic income would still leave a human question: what do we want our days to hold? Time to make art, meet a neighbor, care for a place, or simply be present. One’s peace in society, in themselves, deserves a place in that future.

A secure life, with fewer necessary working hours, room for meaningful work, and time for a peaceful walk—that’s what “to succeed” means to me. If AI can help make that possible, that’s a genie I don’t want back in the lamp. Those hopes still need testing in practice, and people deserve room to weigh the possibilities, question them, and decide for themselves.

If AI helps reduce the hours we need to work, that should leave people secure, with dignity and room to choose. I hope that breathing room reaches our streets and neighborhoods, too: time to slow down, notice others, and take care, with places nearby to work, shop, make art, and meet.

Roads and public transit should help people reach the lives they choose. A neighborhood should also offer a life close to home, without a constant demand to hurry across a city or county. I walk to work. Why shouldn’t more people have that choice? How people spend their time is theirs to decide. They should not be “handcuffed” to a lifestyle, a long commute, or systems that restrict their choices and make a secure life harder to reach. How we treat one another remains our responsibility.

So, as AI expands automation, society faces a choice about who shapes everyday life: corporations with increasing control, or communities with the resources and authority to govern themselves. I want to help build the latter.

🖼️ Art, community and AI

This proposal dates to October 4, 2026, as recorded on my home page and in the archive saved on GitHub:

Its aim is to bring creative tools, printing and places to meet into ordinary community life. Digital work can become something people make, inspect and share together.

AI can assist; people keep judgment and responsibility. The accompanying Archive, linked below, offers ways to question claims, check evidence and test ideas in practice.

The project grows from my art advocacy and a tribute to my father.

I work in sanitation in Olympia, Washington. I developed this guide with AI assistance as part of my art and community advocacy. Companies building and selling AI should make its limits clear and provide usable protections for privacy, judgment and refusal. People using these tools should also have a part in questioning them and shaping how they enter everyday life.

This 2015 photograph shows my digital artwork printed on stretched canvas and displayed in a shared physical space:

The Facebook post: Carl Bond holds a framed certificate beneath
three canvas prints of his digital artwork at TCTV in Olympia.

It is the advocacy of presentation that should help to show others what is possible: printed shirts, spiral-bound notebooks and more. My printed artwork is meant as a starting point for other people.

My father, a lifelong teacher, continues to teach me after his passing on October 4, 2021.

This page introduces a proposal I’m developing through art, everyday work, observation, and dialogue with AI. Its wider effects remain to be tested. The essence of the work is this: take one useful idea, examine it, and adapt it to your own circumstances. If you try it, notice what helps, what costs it carries, and what needs to change. I welcome experiences, objections, and corrections through the social accounts linked below.

AI is a tool that can assist, teach and help build a better world.

I work in sanitation, helping keep Olympia’s sidewalks clean. That is important government work. Each day that I work is a simple reminder: shared places and public institutions need continuing care, and power must remain open to scrutiny and correction. I speak here as a resident and artist. And I want ordinary people to have a fair chance to benefit from the tools I built with AI in my free time.

I think of these tools as Erector Sets and Tinkertoys: pieces to examine, combine, adapt, or leave unused. People can read, sit down, think, and decide what is useful. Each person should be free to use AI, use it selectively, or decline it entirely. Where offline tools meet people’s needs, they deserve a place alongside online services. Where tools are open to inspection and modification, people should have opportunities to improve them without needing a job at a large technology company.

People should have a real say in the conditions their children and grandchildren will inherit: places to walk, conversations to have, meaningful work, and room to live beyond constant demands to buy and hurry. Promises about AI deserve scrutiny, whoever makes them. A title, a fortune, or a fluent answer does not earn unquestioning trust.

Community strength means being able to name our needs, support one another, and help decide how technology enters our lives. This requires participation, knowledge, resources, and accountable institutions. Governments and companies retain responsibility for their decisions and for providing clear information about the systems they build or use. Our lives should not depend on waiting for a powerful person to choose generosity.

Clear instructions belong in the kit. People should be able to find practical guidance in words and languages they understand. Community members can help write, translate, test, and improve that guidance for one another. “How can I use this for what I need?” is a useful starting question. The instructions should explain what the tool can do, its limitations, and how to check its results. Guides developed with AI should remain open to correction, too.

I offer these ideas for others to use and adapt. I do not claim they are the only solution. People should be free to judge, test, and discover what works for them and for the wider world.

If you’re interested, bring your own experience, needs, and judgment. Learn from people with knowledge, question their claims, and help set standards with your neighbors. Our common future deserves more than anyone’s ego. We can begin by saying: “This is what we want AI to help us build — and this is what we will refuse.”

📄 Read and download the report

If there's one thing to take away from this page, let it be this report:

"Five Steps for Better AI Inquiry."

The same report is available at all three links below. Read it to help you understand the world, your place in it, and the uses and limits of AI.

🚨 If you use AI with this material

AI’s account of you is partial, fallible, and open to correction. Keep these boundaries in mind:

Remembering isn’t mutuality. Personalized attention does not establish reciprocal care or a shared life.
Fluency isn’t evidence. Check important claims, quotations, and citations against their sources.
Agreement isn’t confirmation. Ask what challenges an interpretation and what would change the conclusion.
Context isn’t completeness. Ask what the system actually read and what it inferred.
Share deliberately. Provide the context the task needs while protecting personal information.
A suggestion isn’t an obligation; a plan isn’t completed work. You can reject advice. Verify claimed results.
Keep your ability to act outside the conversation. Question, compare, refuse, and set the tool down.

Providers also carry responsibility for honest disclosure, privacy, and preventing manipulation.

⚠️ Using This Material

I suggest starting with the report linked above. You can read it on its own, or add it to an AI service that supports document uploads and ask a specific question. You don’t need to load the full Archive below to begin. The Archive offers additional methods, practice examples and sources for anyone who wants to follow a question further.

These instructions do not assume access to offline AI. If you use a cloud-based service, the provider processes the material you send. Depending on the service, account type and settings, conversations may be retained, reviewed or used to improve models. Check the current privacy policy and data controls before sharing sensitive material.

For my own use, I’m comfortable asking AI the kinds of everyday questions I might ask at a bus stop: “What route do I use to get to X?” That is my choice about what to share. Your circumstances may differ, especially when working with unpublished drafts, confidential company information or other people’s private details.

🔎 Five Questions for Checking Our Thinking

When using AI to explore evidence, politics, or belief, ask for help that keeps your own judgment active:

“What am I assuming?” Help me notice one assumption without deciding the conclusion for me.
“What should I check first?” Point to one claim or original source I can inspect.
“Give me one plausible alternative explanation.” Widen my view without pretending every explanation is equally supported.
“Where does the evidence end and interpretation begin?” Help me distinguish what is established from what requires judgment.
“What would count against this—including your answer?” Make correction possible.

Use one question at a time. Apply these questions to answers you welcome as well as answers you doubt.

Using AI does not establish someone’s motives. Ask what they are doing, whether their claims hold up, and whom the work helps or harms. Apply that scrutiny to enthusiasm and suspicion alike.

If an answer is too brief or unclear, ask “Why?” or “Details, please.” Follow-up questions can improve an explanation, while the service’s rules and technical limits still apply. More detail is not proof. Check the evidence behind the fuller answer too.

🧭 No Throne, No Sacred Interface

AI can be astonishing. Awe is not a reason to surrender judgment.

This same boundary applies to this work, to me, to anyone who builds or uses AI, and to AI itself. Question it. Test it. Adapt it, or refuse it. Admiration should leave room for disagreement.

Builders and operators must make limitations clear and protect people’s ability to question, refuse and leave.

Use what helps. Verify what matters. Keep your judgment.

🕸️ Links

Introductory Project Links

Social Media Connections

My AI Archive on Coding Archival Sites

📺 Video Demonstration of AI

These clips show how easy prompts can guide AI image generation:

🎯 Created Web Tools

charm.ing

🏠 My Home on the Web

The original illustrated page is here. If it is unavailable, you can still download the report and watch the video, both linked above.

carl-bond.com/more

📌 My availability

I am not available for interviews, podcasts, journalistic side-quests or private follow-up reporting.

Please use the published record, for which I remain responsible. All the work is open to criticism and for anyone to reject. For corrections, use the Archive’s correction path.

There are other lives worth reporting on, including those of working people and people facing homelessness. Their time and willingness to speak are theirs to decide. I depend on nothing that a camera or a microphone provides.

Now excuse me, I have music to walk to (or a piece of downtown to clean up).

I walk with a steeled spine. We have a world to help rebuild,
and 2028 is already on the horizon. Maybe it’s time to get busy.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse