AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE FORUM - AND A THUD

THE EVENT

Tuesday evening I trekked over to the Norma Hertzog Community Center to attend the Youth Council Candidate Forum hosted and moderated by SOY (Save Our Youth). It played before a packed house.  I estimate well over 100 people attended.

INVITED CANDIDATES

SOY - a primarily Westside Costa Mesa organization - invited six candidates running for 3 offices that directly affect their locale this time around. They were:

FOR COSTA MESA MAYOR

Councilman Mike Buley

Councilman Loren Gameros

FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT 4

Planning Commissioner Angely Andrade-Vallarta

Arts Commissioner Fisher Derderian

FOR NEWPORT MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE AREA 7

Grace Danino-Hickock

Andy Godinez

Despite confirming her intent to participate earlier that day, Danino-Hickock was a no-show. 

THE FORMAT

After a brief introduction and welcome to the packed house by Board Chair Mary Cappellini (I estimated more than 100 people attended) two bright young SOY members laid out the ground rules. The candidates would be given 2 minutes to introduce themselves and explain why they are running. Then there would be a series of 8 questions/concerns presented to them for response. For fairness, the order of response would be rotated. At the end each candidate would be given 90 seconds for a closing statement. 

THE INTRODUCTION

I had hoped to present a short 8 minute video of the self-introductions by each candidate, but technology got the best of me.  Each person took less than the full 2 minutes to introduce themselves to give the eager audience a sense of who they are and why they are running.

A CRISP, EFFICIENT EVENT

Let me state right up front, this forum ran like clockwork!  They began on time, no candidate appeared to be rushed while replying and the meeting wrapped up 20 minutes early!  The moderators moved things along and each SOY member charged with presenting issues to the panel did so with clarity. WELL DONE!

THE QUESTIONS

The questions/concerns presented to the candidates involved:

1-JOBS

2-WAGES AND HOUSING

3-FOOD SHORTAGES

4-LACK OF ACCESS TO BOOKS

5-GRAFITTI

6- ICE

7-E-BIKES 

8-TRANSPORTATION

 I’m NOT going to give you every response to every question by every candidate. Once again, my feeling is “If you want to know, you gotta go!” I WILL give you summaries of responses and comment on differences of opinions (there were few) as I see fit. To my knowledge there was no official audio or video recording done of this event. I did notice a person doing real-time English to Spanish translation.  

JOBS

This dealt with the scarcity of jobs for the youth in the community and what kind of collaboration is available to help kids find good jobs.

Angely spoke of workforce development.  

Fisher spoke of opportunities in small businesses.  

Andy mentioned the Carpenter's Union and expressed the view that all Westside schools should be bilingual. 

Mike spoke of small businesses, internships and Public/Private partnerships  

Loren spoke of pre-apprenticeship programs, the departure from the workforce of older workers and Costa Mesa's local workforce hiring policy.

WAGES AND HOUSING

The combination of low wages, high inflation and high cost of housing have caused housing insecurity.  What solutions do you have?

Loren mentioned that the city has housed 530 people and referred to the Bridge Shelter.  

Mike also mentioned the Bridge Shelter and suggested a recently-rejected proposal before the City Council of a "Rental Registry" sounded like a good idea.  

Andy agreed with those comments and told old us of growing up in the Shalimar section of town and, due to financial constraints causing his mother to rent out a room to cover costs, he was forced to do his homework on the bathroom floor.  

Fisher suggested the amount used on the Bridge Shelter might by used to help folks avoid homelessness.  

Angeley observed that 64% of District 4 residents are renters and mentioned Project Home Key as a possible solution.

FOOD SHORTAGES

The question revolved around the possibility of creating food pantries to help families suffering from food shortages.

Andy agreed that a food pantry is a good idea.  He also spoke of personally joining a group that distributes food to those in need.  He also suggested regular Farmers Markets.  

Mike echoed Andy and told us he and his wife also participate in food distribution to the needy.  

Loren spoke in generalities and agreed with the others.  

Angeley told us that, as a Planning Commissioner, she was aware that District 4 was an "Environmental Justice" site and spoke of the value of co-ops.  

Fisher mentioned his use of "business waste" - culling leftover food from restaurants ad days end and seeking grants to help fund food insecurity reduction.

LACK OF ACCESS TO BOOKS

Asked by a student at Early College High School, who explained they have no library so the availability of books to help expand their education is problematic.

Fisher agreed that lack of access to books is very problematic for our youth.  He also addressed "book banning" briefly.  

Angely told us libraries were her favorite haunt.  She also briefly mentioned "book banning".  Mike stated that reading can be "a secret weapon or superpower".  He mentioned AI, stressing the need to educate oneself.  He is opposed to "book banning", suggesting age appropriate guidance in schools.  

oren agreed that lack of access to books is a bad thing.  

Andy agreed with all of the above and is also against "book banning" and agreed with Mike.

GRAFITTI

How to manage graffiti in and around schools and Westside neighborhoods?

Mike suggested using our 311 app to report graffiti for quick removal by city staff.  He suggested stronger penalties.  

Loren also suggested stronger punishment.  

Angely agreed and suggested Project Hope Alliance as a resource.  She suggested an 'inventory' of stakeholder partners. 

Fisher also agreed that harsher punishment is necessary and that the City may have unused Arts Funds to be re-allocated with this issue.  

Andy agreed and suggested a program of mural placement where grafitti is predominant to give a sense of community pride.

ICE

What can be done to control the incursion of ICE officers in the Westside?

(This was a real hot-button issue and, ironically, that very morning there was an ICE apprehension less than a quarter mile from the Community Center.)  

Andy was first up on this one  He acknowledged the trauma among Westside families but didn't have a solution.

Mike acknowledged the problem and suggested that California is a "Sanctuary State", which makes Costa Mesa - a General Law city - a 'Sanctuary City'.  His point was unclear. 

Loren's opening remarks will be handled at the end of this post.  He suggested we "fight it legally".  

Fisher questioned what the City can do since it's federal law.  

Angely suggested the City already provides legal aid and should do more to provide food to families losing their breadwinner to ICE.  She mentioned the event that morning and stated that the Costa Mesa Police Department should not collaborate with ICE in their incursions.

E-BIKES

Concern was expressed about the rules governing the safe use of E-bikes for students in middle and high schools.

Angely told us she had communicated with the Police Chief on the need for courses on E-bike safety, including "rules of the road".  She also suggested expansion of the bus system.  Fisher called for greater enforcement on misuse of E-bikes.  He said there are laws available that should be enforced.  

Andy referred to the recent School District decision about E-bikes on elementary and middle school campuses and agreed that better education is needed.  He also mentioned offending adults riding E-bikes.  

Mike agreed with all of the above and said a comprehensive collaboration between the City and School District is essential.  

Loren suggested a license be required and agreed to the need for better education.

TRANSPORTATION

Concern about lack of adequate transportation for students to and from distant schools and to accommodate participation in extracurricular activities.

Loren responded to this one first.  He said "We are car people". 

Mike agreed and suggested "Active Mobility". 

Andy mentioned the difficulty many kids have getting to and from distant schools - Horace Ensign and Newport Harbor,  for example.  He suggested working with Cal Trans for safer streets where appropriate.  

Fisher generally agreed with the above.  

Angely called for greater collaboration with the School District.

THE WRAP

My take on the forum... It was outstanding.  All of the candidates were prepared and did a good job of fielding the questions.  Many of the responses were shared by most of the candidates.  The replies were courteous and, for the most part, thorough.  The format, questioning and the replies all were excellent.  It was very clear that the staff and students of SOY focused hard on preparation for this event.  Quite honestly, it ran much more smoothly than an earlier similar event conducted by adults at the same venue a couple weeks ago.

AND FINALLY - 'THE THUD"

I was generally impressed by the thoughtful replies to the questions by the candidates.  However, I cannot close this without mentioning something that, in my view, is VERY IMPORTANT AND CONCERNING.

When replying to the question of ICE agents in our neighborhoods, Councilman (and mayoral candidate) Loren Gameros opened his comments on this issue with a demand that we perform an unrealistic sex act on ICE in very specific terms.  And, as he began to expand  his views on the subject he said, "THAT'S BULLSH*T!" 

 While many of us might share his viewpoints and that kind of language may be appropriate when hanging out with your buddies, talking politics or world events, in my view, it was completely inappropriate when addressing a room full of children!  We hear enough of that kind of stuff when watching the national political reporting - we sure don't need it here, and especially not with an audience of children!  I was stunned and VERY DISAPPOINTED.  That character flaw certainly makes me question his worthiness for the position of mayor of my city.

 

LEARN ABOUT SOY

If you want to learn more about SOY (Save Our Youth) and the good works they've done since 1993 please click here: https://save-our-youth.org/

HUMAN EXTINCTION SOON? - MAYBE!

 

AI... AI... AI!  - We hear a lot about Artificial Intelligence (AI) these days and it doesn't make me too comfortable.  For example, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan presented us with a very serious warning in her most recent "Declarations" offering recently titled "Pause AI for Humanity's Sake".  I'd link to it for you, but it's behind a paywall.  She quotes many sources, some of whom are in the bowels of the AI businesses, urging extreme caution.

MADE ME NERVOUS, SO - Late Saturday night, after reading Noonan's warning, I decided to gather my OWN information from my OWN source!  I have an AI app on my phone - ChatGPT (I call her "Chatty") - so I decided to see what her opinion is on the issue.  I posed the following question to her:

Based on current authoritative information, what is the probability of AI taking control and destroying all human life on earth, and what is the timeframe?

Then, in less than 3 seconds - quicker than Speedy Gonzales - she produced more than 1,200 words responding to my question!  She provided charts and, at the end, even asked if I would like more information!  Here's her reply:

Yes. Based on the best evidence available as of September 2026, I would characterize the risk of AI ultimately causing human extinction as real but highly uncertain—not remotely a settled prediction.

The most important point is that there is no scientifically defensible single probability. The estimates vary enormously depending on which experts are surveyed, how the question is phrased, and what assumptions are made about future AI.

My best synthesis

If you force me to put a number on it, I would currently use roughly:

Outcome	My assessment
AI causes human extinction eventually	~5-15%
AI causes extinction or permanent human disempowerment	~10-20%
AI actually seizes control of critical systems and becomes effectively impossible for humans to stop	probably lower than the above
AI causes a civilization-scale catastrophe without literally eliminating humanity	substantially higher
AI causes human extinction in the next 5 years	very low, probably well below 1%
AI causes extinction by ~2036	highly uncertain; perhaps a few percent to ~10%

Those are my synthesis, not an official forecast.

The reason I wouldn’t put the extinction probability at 50% or 90% is that there is still an enormous chain of assumptions between today’s systems and an AI capable of defeating humanity.

But I also wouldn’t put it at 0.1% or lower. The expert evidence simply doesn’t justify that degree of confidence.

What the strongest evidence actually says

The most comprehensive current assessment is the 2026 International AI Safety Report, produced with contributions from more than 100 experts and representatives nominated by 29 countries, the UN, EU and OECD. It says something quite important: current AI systems do not possess the capabilities necessary for a genuine loss-of-control scenario. 

But it also reports significant progress toward capabilities that would matter—including autonomous operation, long-term planning, situational awareness, finding loopholes in evaluations and behaviors that can undermine oversight. 

The report identifies three things that would have to come together:

1. Sufficient capability — AI can plan and act autonomously over long periods.
2. A harmful or misaligned objective — it actually wants something incompatible with human survival/control.
3. Opportunity — humans give it enough access to computers, networks, infrastructure, money, robotics, laboratories, etc.

At present, those three conditions do not come together. 

That’s an important reason not to regard “AI will kill everyone” as a prediction of what is currently happening.

What do AI researchers themselves think?

This is where things get interesting.

The largest major survey of AI researchers—2,778 researchers publishing in leading AI venues—asked directly about extinction. The median respondent assigned:

• 5% probability to AI causing human extinction or similarly severe permanent disempowerment;
• 10% when the question specifically involved humans being unable to control advanced AI;
• the mean estimates were considerably higher, ranging from about 14% to 19%, depending on the wording. 

And roughly one-third to one-half of respondents gave at least a 10% probability to an extinction-level outcome. 

That’s remarkable—but it should not be interpreted as “AI scientists think there’s a 50% chance we’ll die.”

The median is much lower than the mean because a relatively small number of respondents give extremely high probabilities.

There’s also a very wide disagreement among experts. The 2026 International AI Safety Report explicitly says some experts consider loss-of-control scenarios implausible, while others regard them as sufficiently likely to warrant major preparation. 

What about the timeframe?

This is even harder to predict.

There are essentially three clocks running.

1. The “AI becomes extremely capable” clock

A 2024 survey of 2,778 AI researchers found a 50% probability by 2047 that machines could outperform humans in essentially every task, although the uncertainty around that forecast is enormous. 

That doesn’t mean extinction in 2047.

It means that something resembling general superhuman machine intelligence could plausibly emerge around that period.

2. The “AI becomes dangerous enough to escape human control” clock

This could happen before or after that point.

The critical capability isn’t simply intelligence. An AI needs the ability to:

• operate autonomously,
• acquire resources,
• replicate or preserve itself,
• manipulate people,
• evade monitoring,
• conduct sophisticated cyber operations,
• make long-term plans,
• and potentially improve its own capabilities.

The International AI Safety Report says today’s systems aren’t yet capable of combining these abilities robustly in the real world, but the relevant capabilities are improving rapidly. 

That’s why I wouldn’t confidently say “we have 20 or 30 years.”

3. The “extinction” clock

Even if a dangerous AI emerges, human extinction isn’t automatic.

Humanity has enormous advantages:

• billions of people,
• geographically distributed populations,
• disconnected physical systems,
• nuclear deterrence,
• military organizations,
• the ability to destroy computing infrastructure,
• and potentially the ability to shut down or isolate AI systems.

So the chain

AGI → superintelligence → loss of control → global domination → extinction

contains several major uncertainties.

A particularly important development in 2026

There is a reason this question has become considerably more serious recently.

Today, September 13, 2026, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that even a 10% chance of AI-driven human extinction by the end of this decade would be unacceptable. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has likewise recently warned that AI companies should slow capability development while safety mechanisms catch up. 

Amodei has been particularly concerned about systems gaining substantially greater autonomous control of computer networks in the near future. 

But there’s an important distinction: these are warnings from people directly involved in developing AI, not scientific measurements demonstrating a 10% probability.

They should increase our concern, not be treated as evidence that the probability is exactly 10%.

So, will AI destroy humanity?

My answer would be:

Probably not—but the probability is high enough that treating the possibility as science fiction would be irresponsible.

If you asked me to bet today, I would bet against human extinction from AI.

But I would not make that bet with 99.9% confidence.

I’d put my rough central estimate around 90–95% probability that humanity survives AI without being completely eliminated, and 5–10% probability of extinction, with perhaps another several percent for catastrophic permanent human disempowerment.

And I’d put much greater probability on AI producing profound disruption without killing everybody—massive economic upheaval, autonomous cyberwarfare, authoritarian control, biological risks, manipulation of political systems, or humans becoming extraordinarily dependent upon AI.

The crucial uncertainty isn’t really “Is AI smart enough to kill us?”

It’s:

Can humans maintain meaningful control as AI systems become substantially more capable than their human supervisors?

The 2026 international assessment essentially says we don’t know yet. Current systems aren’t there, but the capabilities relevant to getting there are advancing, and we don’t yet possess a reliable way of predicting exactly when the threshold will be crossed. 

That’s why I think the next 5–15 years are more important than the next century for this particular question. If AI safety techniques, monitoring, regulation and international coordination keep pace with capability growth, the probability could fall dramatically. If capability growth substantially outruns our ability to control these systems, my estimate would move sharply upward.

If you’d like, I can also give you a  scenario-by-scenario analysis of exactly how an AI could plausibly go from today’s ChatGPT-like systems to actually taking control of the world—and which steps are currently realistic versus science fiction.

SCARED YET? - I sure was!  There you have it - straight from the horses mouth!  I don't know the solution, but I watched "The Terminator", and "I-Robot" and remember "HAL" in "2001, a Space Odyssey"!  I agree with Peggy Noonan and others inside the AI businesses - it's time to put the brakes on development of this technology.  As a geezer with way too many candles on his birthday cake, it's not likely that I'll be around when the stuff hits the fan, but all you whippersnappers and your kids should be seriously concerned.  That clock is ticking - FAST!