AI is already embedded in state operations, assisting with decisions, services, and infrastructure, and more. Tennesseans deserve to know how these systems are governed and that they are set up in a way that can be helpful, but that also safeguards and protects Tennessee residents.

The Freedom of Information Act allows any United States citizen the right to request to review public records as it relates to federal agencies. Concurrently, the Tennessee Public Records Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10‑7‑503 et seq.) allows Tennessee residents the right to request and view public records as it relates to Tennessee government. I submitted such a request to the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration regarding how the state is implementing AI within state systems. The agency acknowledged records were available, but did not release those records to me as required by Tennessee law.

In accordance with Tennessee law, I filed lawsuit suit urging the court to hold the Department accountable for compliance with Tennessee law.

Download/View Petition below:

Please view my previous blog posts below where I respectively discuss in detail my concerns about AI implementation in Tennessee, the steps I’ve taken regarding public records, and my proposal for comprehensive AI legislation for Tennessee.

Tennessee’s Dangerous Acceleration Into Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The AI Divide: U.S. Deregulation Hands Profits to Trump and Big Tech Billionaires While Leaving America’s Kids Exposed

My Artificial Intelligence Comprehensive Legislation Plan for Tennessee

The post Tennessee State Agency Refused to Comply with Public Records Law, So I Petitioned the Court for Enforcement appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..

On February 27, 2026, President Donald Trump ordered every federal agency to immediately stop using products made by Anthropic, the AI company that makes Claude, one of the most capable and widely used AI systems in the world. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk to national security.” Hours later, rival company OpenAI announced it had struck a deal with the Pentagon to deploy its AI models inside the military’s classified network.

The reason this happened? Anthropic refused to remove safety guardrails that prevented its technology from being used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons that kill without human oversight.

Read that again.

The federal government’s demand that triggered the blacklisting of a $380 billion AI company was the removal of protections against surveilling American citizens and deploying weapons that kill people without a human deciding to pull the trigger.

This is not fearmongering or a science fiction scenario, this is breaking news in the United States of America.

What Just Happened and Why It Should Terrify Every American

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei made a public statement refusing the Pentagon’s ultimatum. He wrote: “In a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values. Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do.”

The Defense Department’s response was to threaten invoking the Defense Production Act, a Cold War emergency law designed to commandeer industrial production, to force a private technology company to remove its own safety limits, to be used AGAINST American citizens!

Over 330 employees from Google and OpenAI signed an open letter in solidarity with Anthropic’s stand, writing: “We hope our leaders will stand together to continue to refuse the Department of War’s current demands for permission to use our models for domestic mass surveillance and autonomously killing people without human oversight.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly sided with Amodei, but was simultaneously negotiating a deal its own deal with the Pentagon.

To Recap, Anthropic (Claude) stood firm against the Pentagon by refusing to allow its AI platform to be used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons, meaning no human control or direction. In retaliation for Anthropic’s insistence on ethical boundaries and safeguards, President Trump canceled Anthropic’s government contract and basically blacklisted them from future federal contract opportunities.

All the while, OpenAI took up the mantle and agreed to work with the Pentagon, insisting on AI safety guardrails.

The United States, with Israel, began a military operation against Iran, which it seems the government used the Claude AI platform for some of its military operations against Iran.  AI is extremely effective at achieving many goals, but it is equally dangerous without proper safeguards.

The problem is that there isn’t a legislative mechanism in place to ensure AI isn’t being used in a manner that the Pentagon initially demanded of Anthropic, to which Anthropic said, NO.

Congress has passed no comprehensive AI legislation that addresses this and a host of other issues pertaining to AI use in the United States. There is especially no mechanism for public oversight of how the most powerful AI systems on the planet are being deployed, whether by the government or by the private sector. Even so, Trump’s America’s AI Action Plan is designed to eliminate oversight and safeguards at the state level by threatening to sue states that try to protect their own citizens.

Tennessee can be an innovative leader in AI without sacrificing necessary safeguards and protections for Tennesseans.

AI Is Currently Operating in Tennessee without Sufficient Safeguards

The Pentagon showdown is the dramatic headline. But it is only one dimension of an AI landscape that poses daily, immediate risks to ordinary Tennesseans, risks that have nothing to do with military weapons systems, but are equally disastrous.

Right now, in Tennessee:

AI is making hiring decisions that determine whether you get a job interview — and there is no law requiring those systems to be tested for racial or gender bias before they are deployed.

AI is scoring criminal defendants before trial, influencing bail and sentencing decisions, without defendants having any right to know what data was used or how to contest the result.

Social media platforms are using AI recommender systems that silently suppress your posts if they contain certain words or express certain political, religious, or social viewpoints, without you ever knowing this is happening.

Deepfake AI systems are generating synthetic media of real people in fabricated scenarios designed to deceive. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act protects musicians from AI voice cloning, but it does not protect your neighbor running for school board.

Foreign-government-controlled AI systems, including systems built by companies operating under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party, have been assessed by Tennessee’s own state security evaluators as posing serious data and national security risks. Those systems are not banned from operating in Tennessee today.

Children and youth are daily targets of AI systems specifically engineered to maximize their time on screens through psychological exploitation such as variable reward loops, social comparison algorithms, or infinite scrolling designed to make them lose track of time. There is no state law stopping any of it.

Why Tennessee Is Already Ahead, And Why That Matters

Tennessee has more AI governance infrastructure than many other states in the country, but we are still incredibly vulnerable to the risks of unregulated AI integration.

The ELVIS Act, signed in March 2024 and effective July 2024, made Tennessee the first state in the nation to pass AI-specific legislation. It is nationally recognized as the gold standard for AI likeness protection, and its core principles have been cited in proposed federal legislation.

The Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA), established consumer data rights that lay the foundation for AI accountability: the right to access, correct, and delete your personal data.

The STS Enterprise AI Policy (200-POL-007), developed by Tennessee’s Strategic Technology Solutions division, already requires state agencies to comply with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, the same technical standard adopted by the world’s leading AI governance frameworks. This policy established an AI Review Committee, a Standard Products List for approved AI tools, and a prohibition on unapproved AI on state systems.

The Tennessee AI Advisory Council, operating under the Governor’s charter, has produced detailed Action Plans identifying six priority areas for AI governance: workforce, cybersecurity, public trust, civil rights, election integrity, and economic competitiveness.

Tennessee’s own security evaluators conducted a formal assessment of DeepSeek AI in 2025, identifying it as a security risk. This prompted a state employee ban via executive order, but lacks broader legislative enforcement for private use or vendors.

Tennessee has built a foundation, but Tennessee needs to continue with comprehensive legislation that safeguards us moving forward with the precariousness of AI.

Tennessee has a golden opportunity to craft comprehensive AI legislation that positions the Volunteer State as a national leader, combining cutting-edge innovation, creativity, robust consumer privacy, and strong protections in a way that generates real economic wins, puts Tennessee on the map, and keeps everyday Tennesseans safe from emerging risks.

Dr. Bonds’ Proposal for Comprehensive AI Legislation for Tennessee

I am proposing the Tennessee Responsible and Unified Standards for Technology (TRUST) Act.

This is a comprehensive framework, drawing perspective from efforts already in place, grounded in the National Institute Standards and Technology (NIST) Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) and related standards, and built directly on the existing Tennessee statutory and administrative infrastructure.

In the interest of transparency and responsible use of technology, I used artificial intelligence tools to assist with research organization, comparative analysis, and structural drafting while developing this comprehensive AI legislative proposal. All policy positions, legal interpretations, and final conclusions reflect my independent judgment and review.

Overview of my proposed TRUST Act:

Risk Classification: AI systems in Tennessee are classified into four tiers based on their potential for harm. The most dangerous practices – social scoring, domestic surveillance AI, manipulation, foreign-government-controlled AI on state systems – are prohibited outright. High-stakes AI systems used in criminal justice, hiring, healthcare, and education face rigorous oversight requirements. Social media recommender systems and chatbots face transparency and disclosure obligations.

Human Oversight Requirements: No Tennessean should have their life materially changed by a machine alone. Codifying what Tennessee already requires for its own state AI systems (under ISC Gen AI Policy 3.00), the TRUST Act requires human review before any AI-automated decision with serious consequences takes effect, such as job terminations, bail determinations, benefit denials, healthcare decisions.

The Right to Know and Contest: Extending the rights already established in TIPA/HB1181, Tennesseans would have the right to know when AI made a decision affecting them, to receive a plain-language explanation, and to contest the result before a human being.

Algorithmic Bias Mitigation:  AI systems making consequential decisions must be tested for racial, gender, age, and disability bias before deployment, monitored annually, and audited by independent evaluators every two years. This operationalizes the Tennessee Human Rights Act for the AI era.

Generative AI Training Data Transparency: Any developer that commercially deploys a large-scale generative AI system in Tennessee must publicly disclose a high-level summary of their training data: what categories of sources were used, what date ranges they cover, what demographic groups are underrepresented, and whether any data originated from foreign-government-controlled systems.

Viewpoint Discrimination and Platform Accountability: Social media platforms using AI to suppress or amplify content based on viewpoint, political opinion, or religious expression,  without disclosing that they are doing it, are engaging in deceptive practices. The TRUST Act requires platforms to document their content moderation criteria, disclose their keyword filtering parameters publicly, and carry the burden of proving their enforcement is viewpoint-neutral. Before introduction, the Office of Legal Services will prepare a constitutional analysis specifically documenting why this provision is a commercial deception regulation, not a speech regulation

Election Integrity: During the 90 days before any Tennessee election, Very Large Online Platforms cannot change their algorithmic parameters for election content without 30 days’ public notice. AI-generated synthetic media depicting candidates in false scenarios must carry prominent disclosure. Any government request to suppress election content must be reported within 72 hours.

Child and Adolescent Protection: Addictive AI design targeting minors, behavioral profiling of children for commercial purposes, and collection of sensitive child data for AI training are prohibited.

The Tennessee Artificial Intelligence Commission: A nine-member independent regulatory body, extending and formalizing the existing AI Advisory Council, with rulemaking authority, investigation powers, and civil penalty enforcement.

Enforcement with a Calibrated Cure Period: Civil penalties up to $250,000 per violation for prohibited practices, trebled for willful conduct. Class D felony criminal liability for the most egregious violations. A private right of action for Tennesseans who suffer real harm. Prohibited-practice violations carry no cure period and are immediately actionable. High-risk AI compliance failures get a 60-day cure window for first offenses. Cures are not self-executing: the Commission determines whether a submitted cure is genuine, and cosmetic or terminological fixes that leave the underlying harm in place do not qualify.

NIST AI RMF Integrated into TCA: The TRUST Act is the only state framework in the country that elevates the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to an explicit statutory baseline for all Tier 2 systems, directing the Commission to develop a Tennessee-specific NIST AI RMF Compliance Profile within 18 months, a sector-by-sector mapping of exactly which NIST subcategories apply to which deployment contexts in Tennessee. This turns a statutory reference into an operational compliance standard.

Frontier AI Safety: The highest-capability AI systems, those trained on compute resources exceeding 10²⁶ floating-point operations (FLOPs), must publish a Frontier AI Safety Framework addressing catastrophic risk thresholds, third-party safety evaluations, cybersecurity of model weights, and a 72-hour incident notification protocol.

Interstate AI Governance Compact: The Commission is authorized to negotiate a multi-state AI governance compact with other states to establish mutual recognition of conformity assessments and harmonized definitions.

IMPLEMENTATION-READY PROPOSAL

Because AI is not waiting for the legislative process to move at its normal pace, the TRUST Act framework includes five recommendations that can be deployed immediately, some requiring no new legislation at all:

Recommendation 1 – Governor’s Executive Order: Using existing authority under T.C.A. § 4-1-201 and STS policy authority, the Governor can immediately mandate statewide compliance with 200-POL-007, ban Foreign-Adversary AI (including DeepSeek) from all state systems, require NIST AI RMF compliance for all state AI procurement, and direct the Attorney General to issue enforcement guidance on AI deception as an existing TCPA violation. Zero new legislation required.

Recommendation 2 – Omnibus AI Safety Amendment Act: A single fast-track bill amending three already-enacted Tennessee statutes – TCPA (§ 47-18-101), TIPA/HB1181 (§ 47-18-2101), and the Election Code (§ 2-19-143) – to add AI-specific protections. This is the fastest legislative path because it builds on laws that already completed the legislative process.

Recommendation 3 – AI Advisory Council Formalization Act: A short standalone bill elevating the Governor’s AI Advisory Council from an administrative body to a statutory commission with rulemaking authority, locking in the Council’s work product as durable institutional infrastructure regardless of future administrations.

Recommendation 4 – AG and Human Rights Commission Enforcement Directive: Immediate guidance from the Tennessee Attorney General clarifying that AI manipulation and viewpoint-discriminatory algorithmic suppression are existing TCPA violations. No legislation required, as these are unfair and deceptive practices under law already on the books.

Recommendation 5 – Child Safety and Mental Health AI Act: A standalone bill targeting the AI harms to children and adolescents

Tennessee can be the state that proves responsible AI leadership is not only possible, but necessary. The foundation is already laid, the framework is already written, the moment is now.

The post Why Tennessee Must Act on AI…Now! appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..

Our federal and local governments appear to be operating with a level of opaqueness rather than transparency, and I have become increasingly concerned about this. Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C. § 552) and the Tennessee Public Records Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10‑7‑503 et seq.), I requested several documents from the government to verify that the are operating transparently and in the best interest of the American people. I list in detail in my blog, Tennessee’s Dangerous Acceleration into Artificial Intelligence (AI), all of the information I requested from federal and state agencies who are instrumental in these dangerous policies.

Federal Offices/Departments I sent FOIA/TPRA requests to:

• Federal Trade Commission
• United States Department of Commerce – National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• United States Department of Energy
• United States Department of Homeland Security – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
• United States Department of Justice – Office of Information Policy (OIP)
• United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• United States Department of State
• The White House – Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
• Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration

The law provides a specific timeline for how both the state and federal governments are required to handle FOIA or TPRA requests. My requests for records were denied stating no records were found, denied because the office deemed my requests were too comprehensive, or agencies are charging excessive fees to produce the information. I have submitted follow-up emails and requests to most of these, as it has been more time than the law allows for these requests. It is especially disconcerting when we cannot trust the government to comply with the laws it seeks to enforce on us.

This quest to hold our government accountable for compliance and transparency is one that I have voluntarily taken because I see the need, but it also comes at an incredible cost and financial expense. I am a mental health counselor in Tennessee where a large percentage of my clients have Medicaid (Tenncare) insurance, and those reimbursement rates are negligible compared to other insurance rates. This means I don’t have any excess time or money to fight this uphill battle and need your support to continue these efforts, as many of these agencies are charging enormous fees to produce records, in an attempt to stop my efforts. Please consider contributing to my GoFundMe.

AI Deregulation: A Green Light for Exploitation of the American People

Trump secured MOUs from at least 24 different companies associated with AI and technology. These billionaires committed to contribute money to the Genesis Mission in exchange for contracts and policies that maximize these companies’ profits, while middle class Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck. This wealth gap is compounded by the reality that Trump and these AI developers are profiting billions while systematically creating an environment surrounding AI that is completely risky and unstable, with the most vulnerable in our communities being the ones who are continually exploited.

I am not anti-profit, anti-success, or even anti-Trump; I celebrate innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic strength, but I have and will always support and advocate for the protection of the most vulnerable in our communities who cannot defend themselves. We must act as digital gatekeepers for our kids; safeguarding the next generation is not partisan; it is a moral imperative that transcends politics.

The European Union (EU) Prioritizes Consumer Safety Above Profits

The complexity and challenges of AI are a global issue and isn’t just centralized within the United States. Aware that AI could supercharge misinformation, entrench bias, exploit children, and undermine fundamental rights, the European Union chose a proactive path, implementing robust protections before these harms became irreversible. Recognizing that people, especially children and the most vulnerable are susceptible to exploitation, the EU AI Act contains explicit guidelines for AI platforms:

• Bans unacceptable-risk AI uses, including manipulative subliminal techniques, real-time biometric surveillance in public spaces, and AI exploiting age-related vulnerabilities (e.g., manipulative techniques targeting minors)
• Mandates risk management, transparency, and human oversight for high-risk systems used in hiring, education, and critical infrastructure
• Requires general-purpose AI models like ChatGPT, Copilot, and Grok to disclose capabilities, publish technical documentation, report systemic risks, and clearly indicate users are interacting with AI
• Mandates safeguards against deepfakes, grooming risks, and harmful content
• Imposes substantial fines for violations.

US politicians and AI platform owners and developers have stated that the EU AI Act is too restrictive and stifles creativity. Translation: they don’t want anything that might reduce their ability to maximize profits, or threatened their perception of their superiority. The moral high ground he US often takes regarding foreign policy goes out the window when the wealthy continue to exploit its citizens in order for 5% of the population to remain wealthy and in power.

Article 5 in the EU AI Act list specific rules and safeguards for their citizens as it relates to how companies implement AI. Rather than utilizing the EU’s policy as a framework to establish one for the United States, Trump and his billionaire tech leaders criticize and demonize the EU’s plan, disregarding the real and present dangers AI presents to the world. Instead, Trump is focused on maximizing his profits and gaslighting the American people.

The United States Needs Comprehensive AI Legislation

The horrors of the Epstein files are the result of powerful men and women being allowed to exploit children for their own selfish and sadistic pleasures. Continuing with the Genesis Mission in the manner Trump has initiated is a continuation of that same level of exploitation. Trump reroutes power and financial gain to himself and those who have helped him rise to power, all the while touting his quest for “draining the swamp” and finding “waste, fraud, and abuse.” A system that rewards and prioritizes wealth for a select few, while systematically removing food, insurance benefits, and other basic needs of a civilized culture, has a humanity that is questionable.

I researched the proposed bills that have been offered by members of congress regarding AI, and it seems to me that they are offering fragments of policy ideas that never make it out of Committees, but they are also vastly inept to address the current state of AI in the US, much less the cavalier and reckless approach Trump is taking via the Genesis Mission through Executive Order. The following are House/Senate bills you can research yourself to see:

• H.R. 7294
• H.R. 7218
• H.R. 7158
• H.R. 7151
• H.Res 1007
• H.R. 7110
• S. 3680
• H.R. 7064
• H.R. 7058
• S. 3586

A comprehensive AI governance at both the federal and state level can and should be implemented. The capacity for innovation and harm through AI is profound, and the United States has a history of exploiting its citizens in favor of ego, racism, and incessant need for power and dominance.

• Slavery & Jim Crow laws
• Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
• MKUltra Program 
• Japanese American Internment
• and more

The EU AI Act provides an effective starting point to implement protective measures for AI in the United States:

• Risk-based classification system — Categorize AI systems by risk level: prohibit unacceptable-risk practices (e.g., social scoring, manipulative subliminal techniques); heavily regulate high-risk systems (e.g., in employment, education, critical infrastructure, law enforcement) with strict obligations like risk management, data governance, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity; impose lighter transparency rules for limited-risk AI (e.g., chatbots, deepfakes); leave minimal-risk AI largely unregulated or voluntary.
  
• Clear prohibitions and exceptions — Outright ban high-harm practices (e.g., untargeted facial scraping, emotion inference in workplaces/education except for safety/medical reasons, real-time remote biometric ID in public spaces with narrow, safeguarded law enforcement exceptions requiring impact assessments, authorization, and registration).
  
• Obligations tailored to roles and general-purpose AI — Place primary duties on providers (developers) for high-risk and general-purpose/foundation models (e.g., documentation, copyright compliance, risk assessments, adversarial testing for systemic-risk models); assign lighter responsibilities to deployers (users), importers, and distributors; support downstream transparency and incident reporting.
  
• Governance, innovation support, and enforcement — Establish centralized oversight (e.g., an expanded NIST AI Safety Institute or new federal AI Office), advisory bodies, codes of practice, and regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation (especially for SMEs/startups); include market surveillance, incident reporting, penalties (tiered fines), and phased implementation timelines to allow transition and adaptation.

We cannot keep sacrificing safeguards and protections for Americans so the powerful stay rich. Demand a comprehensive federal AI legislation for our children, our families, and our future…otherwise, history might repeat itself.

The post The AI Divide: U.S. Deregulation Hands Profits to Trump and Big Tech Billionaires While Leaving America’s Kids Exposed appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..

Despite talk of “responsible AI,” Tennessee advances development while relying on gutted federal protocols, leaving Tennesseans exposed to systems that favor the wealthy over the vulnerable.

This is not speculation…it is a documented policy drift.

I’m not anti-technology, anti-Trump, or anti-Tennessee; my concern is AI implementation that prioritizes politicians’ profits and media/AI companies’ access while sacrificing safeguards for Tennesseans. This unfolds quietly while President Trump “floods the zone” with headlines from kidnapping foreign leaders, threatening to invade Greenland, removing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), all while supporting the Department of Justice (DOJ) as it disregards the Epstein Transparency Act, shielding wealthy pedophiles who exploited children through Epstein Sex Trafficking Ring.

Genesis Mission Recklessness: Trump’s Manhattan Project Redux

The Genesis Mission is a United States Department of Energy project that President Trump quietly implemented via Executive Order on November 24, 2025, during the holiday season amid various breaking news stories, that is continuing to progress behind the scenes. Through the “Big Beautiful Bill,” Republicans in Congress cut funding to the following major programs to in order to fund this AI endeavor:

• Medicaid: $800–$990 billion
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, food stamps): $187 billion
• Student loans / Higher education programs: elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and unsubsidized Stafford loans starting July 2026)

These cuts strip benefits that were once earmarked for

• ~37 million children (720K Tennessee kids)
• ~15.4 million disabled (288K Tennesseeans)
• ~7.7 million seniors (144K Tennesseeans)
• SNAP Food Benefits for 42 million Americans (1.44M Tennesseeans)

Tennessee is a central player of the Genesis Mission through Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where Trump has basically commissioned ORNL to drive AI at high speed, but without a safety belt and air bags! We are on a collision course headed for disaster!

When Trump created the Genesis Mission via Executive Order, he revoked Biden’s previous EO regarding AI (Executive Order 14110), and without getting completely technical, there are several safeguards for Americans that were in place that Trump has sacrificed to maximize speed and profitability:

• No Congressional oversight
• No legislative safeguards
• AI consumer protections ignored
• Bias, Civil Rights protection, and discrimination prevention Reversed

Trump is sacrificing the most vulnerable Americans (Tennesseans) through his approach to advancing the United States’ footing in the AI realm, which is driven by Trump’s greed and dictatorial hunger for power. This is evident in the lack of congressional consultation and support, even though Trump has majorities in both the House, Senate, and the Supreme Court; additionally, the individuals and businesses who have committed to financially supporting the Genesis Mission basically have a quid pro quo relationship with Trump and by association the federal government. Practically, this means that because entities such as OpenAI (ChatGPT), xAI (Elon Musk & X/Twitter), Microsoft (Copilot), etc. have made financial contributions to Donald Trump, he is giving them unrestricted access to federal government systems, which includes military plans, intelligence reports, and even Americans’ private data.

That is not governance…it’s a voluntary hostile takeover at the expense of Americans.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safeguards Were In Place But Trump Revoked Them

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a U.S. federal agency that develops technical standards and guidance to support innovation, security, and reliability in areas like Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence (AI). In the area of AI, NIST created the AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), a voluntary blueprint that helps organizations identify, measure, and manage risks such as bias, security vulnerabilities, and unreliable model behavior across the AI lifecycle. The framework’s core goal is to promote trustworthy AI by encouraging practices that improve transparency, fairness, accountability, robustness, and alignment with legal and societal expectations, while still being flexible and non‑binding for industry.

NIST’s AI RMF 1.0, released in 2023, was built with those goals to manage risk with AI, organizing real risk work into four functions – Govern, Map, Measure, Manage – meant to ensure institutions to actually identify, monitor, and mitigate harms before AI systems are deployed on the public. Trump signed Executive Order 14179, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,” which revoked Biden’s AI safety order and launched a new America’s AI Action Plan designed to remove “burdens” on AI development. Trump’s plan explicitly instructs NIST to revise the AI RMF to eliminate references to DEI, misinformation, and climate-related risks, precisely the categories that most directly protect vulnerable communities, democratic discourse, and environmental safety.

The State of Tennessee’s Strategic Technology Solutions (STS) Roadmap for Generative AI explicitly commits the state to alignment with NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), which is backed by research and appropriate safeguards for consumers, but it directly conflicts with Trump’s Winning the Race – America’s AI Action Plan and Executive Order 14179 (Genesis Mission). Tennessee State officials are not only producing conflicting statements and plans for protecting Tennesseans, but also are implying that federal oversight will provide sufficient protection as Tennessee explores AI integration, including the State’s active communication with OpenAI and xAI over the integration of ChatGPT and/or Grok into State systems, but without any legislative safeguards in place.

Tennessee government officials are basically tossing Tennesseans out of a proverbial plane without a parachute and just saying, “Just trust us…you’ll be okay.” THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! Neither the federal government or Tennessee government has provided sufficient legislative safeguards for venturing into the AI realm, but Trump has secured governmental contracts for leaders in the AI and similar fields who have been financial supporters for him.

As it stands, there are few safeguards or laws in place that informs and protects the public from nefarious use:

• The White House can post an AI-modified image of an individual that gives a false impression of what actually happened (Source)
• The Department of Defense and Pentagon may be incorporating xAI & Elon Musk’s Grok into its systems. (Source) Elon or xAI developers could program Grok to classify individuals or entire communities as “biological threats” based on health records, travel history, or genetic data. (Source)
• Tennessee has actively been having meetings with OpenAI representatives, which means ChatGPT could be integrated into Tennessee systems, which means Grok and ChatGPT could be deciding who gets evacuated or aided first in a weather or nuclear crisis, embedding programmed biases into life-or-death decisions. (Source)
• Consider how effective an actual Matrix simulation would be if weaponized on a group of people or population. AI has the capability of creating quantum simulations that create hyper-realistic illusions for psychological operations, blurring the line between reality and state-crafted deceptions. (Source)
• A foreign or domestic operative could use AI-integrated controls allowing selective blackouts of zip codes or smart homes flagged for “non-compliant” energy use or online activity. (Trump alluded to the United States having the ability to control power grids…they could target any zip code and restrict services for any reason they justify. (Source)
• It is also possible that AI can engineer contagious diseases that selectively harm vulnerable groups, exploiting disparities for devastating effects. (Source)

These aren’t just worst case scenarios, these are actual possibilities that can happen today because there are not any legal or structural safeguards in place to mitigate these concerns and protect Americans from AI exploitation and weaponization. We voted to send lawmakers to state and national offices not for them to solely boost their ego and financial standing, we voted for them to advocate and create a state and country where we can grow, thrive, and be safe.

Today is January 23, 2026 and the deadline of the next phase of the Genesis Mission was submitted per the instructions of the Genesis Mission Executive Order. Backdoor governing is not what our founding fathers set up through the Constitution that is FOR THE PEOPLE.

Today, I filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with federal agencies, as well as a Public Records Request to the State of Tennessee, seeking information from specific department of governments.

Federal Offices/Departments I sent FOIA requests to:

• Federal Trade Commission
• United States Department of Commerce – National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
• United States Department of Energy
• United States Department of Homeland Security – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
• United States Department of Justice – Office of Information Policy (OIP)
• United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
• United States Department of State
• The White House – Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
• Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration

I have received confirmations from each of these that my request(s) were received.

Summary of Records Requested

Requested Under the Tennessee Public Records Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10‑7‑503 et seq.)

AI Risk Framework Implementation

• Documents showing how Tennessee operationalizes the NIST AI Risk Management Framework across state government.
• Materials detailing use of the Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions.
• Internal procedures for AI risk identification, mitigation, monitoring, governance, bias management, incident response, and accountability.
• Policies tied to the STS Roadmap for Generative AI, Enterprise AI Policy, Enterprise GenAI Policy, and the November 2025 AI Advisory Council Action Plan.

Assessments and Evaluations

• Internal or external audits, gap analyses, or compliance reviews assessing Tennessee’s alignment with NIST AI RMF 1.0 or the NIST Generative AI Profile.
• Algorithmic impact assessments, bias or error reviews, readiness evaluations, and pilot program outcome reports.
• Any formal evaluations referenced or implied in the STS Roadmap or related AI policies.

Internal and Interagency Communications

• Emails, meeting minutes, agendas, presentations, notes, and correspondence discussing:
  • AI RMF implementation status
  • Identified gaps or challenges
  • Decisions to delay, defer, or partially implement AI risk controls
  • Reliance on pilots, legacy security policies, or future revisions instead of full operational plans
• Explicit exclusion: AI Advisory Council meeting minutes already publicly posted (specific dates listed); request targets unposted, supplemental, or internal records not in the public archive.
  

AI Governance Roles and Accountability

• Records defining AI risk management roles within cabinet-level agencies.
• Designation of AI risk officials or governance leads.
• Training materials, reporting templates, and accountability structures referenced in the November 2025 AI Advisory Council Action Plan or related governance documents.

Response to Federal AI Policy Changes

• Documents discussing whether Tennessee has:
• Records addressing potential removal of risk concepts such as DEI, misinformation, or climate change from AI governance.
• Any analysis of consistency or conflict between revised federal guidance and Tennessee AI policy.

Federal Coordination and Partnerships

• Correspondence and coordination with federal entities on AI governance and risk management, including:
  • Department of Energy
  • NIST
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Genesis Mission)
  • White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Records where NIST frameworks are referenced in federal–state AI discussions or agreements.

Requested Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552)

Government–Platform Communications on Content Control and AI Access

(Requested from State Department, DHS/CISA, FBI, FTC)

• All communications between federal agencies and major technology or AI platforms, including:
  • Meta
  • X (Twitter)
  • Google / Youtube
  • TikTok
  • OpenAI
  • xAI
  • etc.
• Records concerning:
  • Content moderation, labeling, or downranking
  • Removal or suppression of posts or accounts
  • Government access to APIs, models, or tools used to monitor or shape political, civic, or election-related discourse

Federal Advisory Roles and AI Governance Influence

(Requested from State, DHS/CISA, FBI, FTC)

• Records identifying advisory boards, task forces, or working groups where:
  • AI or social-media executives participated
  • Topics included AI governance, election security, misinformation, or content moderation

Government Use of Generative AI for Narrative or Influence Operations

(Requested from State, DHS/CISA, FBI, FTC)

• Records describing use, testing, or planned use of generative AI systems for:
  • “Narrative management”
  • “Counter-disinformation”
  • “Influence operations” (domestic or international)
• Supporting documentation requested:
  • Risk assessments
  • Ethical guidelines
  • Guardrail and governance documentation

DOJ Use of AI in FOIA Processing and Sensitive Request Handling

(Requested from U.S. Department of Justice and OIP)

• Records detailing DOJ or component use of AI tools in FOIA processing, including:
  • Auto-redaction
  • Technology-assisted review
  • Machine learning systems
• Requested documentation includes:
  • Vendor contracts and procurement records
  • Policies, SOPs, and training materials
  • Performance audits, error-rate analyses, and bias or fairness evaluations
  • Inspector General or OIP reviews
• Guidance or training materials addressing:
  • FOIA requests deemed “politically sensitive”
  • Application of Exemption 5 and “foreseeable harm”
  • Requests involving high-profile officials, major corporate partners, or high-media-interest topics
    

FBI Communications and AI Use for Information Control

(Requested from FBI)

• Communications with AI and social-media companies regarding:
  • Content moderation or suppression
  • Monitoring or shaping online political or civic discourse
• Records on FBI use or testing of generative AI for:
  • Narrative management
  • Counter-disinformation
  • Influence operations
• Associated risk, ethics, and guardrail documentation

Federal Trade Commission Involvement in Content and AI Governance

(Requested from FTC)

• Communications with AI and platform companies on:
  • Content moderation and suppression
  • API or tool access for discourse monitoring
• Advisory participation involving AI governance, elections, or misinformation
• FTC use or evaluation of generative AI for narrative or influence-related purposes, including safeguards

Executive Order 14110 Revocation and Deregulatory Impact

(Requested from Office of Management and Budget)

• Internal deliberations and analyses following revocation of EO 14110 (“Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI”), including:
• Communications and consultations with private companies regarding:
  • AI governance shifts
  • Deregulatory actions post-revocation
• Records identifying private companies given consultative or implementation authority in AI policy matters

NIST and Commerce AI Safety Definitions and Policy Shifts

(Requested from NIST / Department of Commerce)

• Internal documents defining or operationalizing:
  • “Misinformation”
  • “Deception”
  • “Harmful content”
  • “Safety” for government-funded or evaluated AI models
• Analyses assessing how EO 14110’s revocation affected:
  • AI benchmarks
  • Red-teaming practices
  • Safety guidance and safeguards
• Records related to AI RFIs or public consultations, including:
  • All submissions received
  • Internal summaries and decision memos
  • Records of non-publication or selective publication of comments
• Use of AI tools in FOIA processing at Commerce or NIST, including audits and bias/error assessments

Department of Energy and the Genesis Mission

(Requested from DOE)

• Contracts, MOUs, and data-sharing agreements related to the Genesis Mission, including partnerships with private AI and technology firms.
• Risk, privacy, and governance documentation addressing:
  • FOIA and transparency obligations
  • Privacy and data protection
  • Civil-rights and anti-discrimination safeguards
  • Export control and national-security constraints
  • Intellectual property and data-sharing rules
• Records tied to AI RFIs under Pub. L. 119-21, including:
  • Full submissions and scoring matrices
  • Decisions not to post certain comments publicly
  • Deviations from standard notice-and-comment practices
• Internal evaluations of consumer privacy, safety, civil-rights, and fraud risks arising from DOE AI initiatives.
• DOE use of AI tools in FOIA processing, including:
  • Vendor contracts
  • User manuals
  • Performance and bias evaluations

We the people…

The post Tennessee’s Dangerous Acceleration Into Artificial Intelligence (AI) appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..

By December, the DOE had already signed non-binding Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with 24 major organizations, including major AI developers (e.g., Anthropic, OpenAI, xAI), cloud providers (e.g., AWS, Google, Microsoft, Oracle), hardware/chip firms (e.g., AMD, NVIDIA, Intel, Groq, Cerebras), infrastructure companies (e.g., Dell, HPE, CoreWeave), consulting/data firms (e.g., Accenture, DrivenData, Palantir), and others (e.g., XPRIZE for incentives, Radical AI, Periodic Labs). The following is the full list, as of December 2025:

• Accenture
• AMD
• Anthropic
• Armada
• Amazon Web Services
• Cerebras
• CoreWeave
• Dell
• DrivenData
• Google
• Groq
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise
• IBM
• Intel
• Microsoft
• NVIDIA
• OpenAI
• Oracle
• Periodic Labs
• Palantir
• Project Prometheus
• Radical AI
• xAI
• XPRIZE

Key Concerns with the Genesis Mission

While I support U.S. leadership in AI, the approach raises red flags:

• Executive Overreach and Limited Congressional Oversight: Built on a narrow congressional mandate (Section 50404 of Public Law 119-21) but expanded aggressively via executive orders, with $150 million in funding but no robust requirements for congressional reporting or audits.

• Revocation of Critical AI Safeguards: In January 2025, Trump revoked Biden’s comprehensive Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI. This eliminated mandates for safety testing/red-teaming of high-risk models, protections against AI-enabled fraud/deception (e.g., deepfakes), equity/anti-discrimination measures, privacy-enhancing technologies, and consumer transparency. Without these, consumers are far more vulnerable to harms like biased algorithms in everyday services, privacy invasions, or manipulative AI content.

• Data Privacy and Exploitation Risks: The 24 organizations who have already partnered with the Trump administration hold an enormous amount of power and control already…with access to federal datasets and little to no legislative oversight and restraint, history repeats itself regarding exploitation of the vulnerable population
  
• Access to Sensitive Data – private companies with access to classified or controlled information (e.g. nuclear energy research, military applications, etc.). With the prevalence of data breaches, everything becomes vulnerable
  
• Asymmetry in Protections: Robust controls for military/classified data, but weaker for civilian/consumer information.

• Transparency Deficits: Little public insight into partner access or ethical guardrails.

• Potential Conflicts: Unclear IP rules could allow private exploitation of publicly derived models.

Scholars and legal analysts have warned that Trump’s AI policy shifts leave Americans exposed to unchecked risks and heightens vulnerabilities to misuse, bias, and privacy breaches.

Genesis concentrates AI power in federal hands, while the overarching safety and accountability framework that existed previously, exposing consumers and communities more vulnerable to potential harms such as bias, misuse, surveillance, and overall economic disruption. Despite its scale, Genesis Mission has received relatively little mainstream coverage compared with daily BREAKING news stories generated by the Trump Administration.

Flooding the Zone

The phrase “flood the zone with sh*t” originates from Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist and Breitbart executive. In a 2018 interview, Bannon explained it as a deliberate tactic to overwhelm the media and political opponents.

In essence, the strategy involves generating a relentless barrage of news – controversial statements, policy announcements, scandals, executive actions, and often misinformation or provocative claims – to

• Overload the information ecosystem: Media outlets, fact-checkers, and opponents can’t keep up with scrutinizing everything.

• Distract and disorient: Public attention fragments, making it hard to focus on any single issue (e.g., a major policy change slips through amid chaos).

• Erode trust: By mixing truth with falsehoods or hyperbole, it fosters cynicism about facts, journalism, and institutions.

• Advance agenda quietly: While critics chase one story, other priorities get implemented with less resistance.

It feels like chaos but it is a very effective political strategy…have you heard of the Genesis Mission?

While We Are Distracted The Department of Energy Races Ahead to Federalize Artificial Intelligence (AI)

I only know about the Genesis Mission because I have been doing research for the past few months about AI and it came up during my search. There has been almost no direct outreach from the administration encouraging ordinary Americans to engage with the Genesis Mission‑related AI process, which has very specific timelines of events that are happening, with the next one being on January 23, 2026. The main opportunity for public input has been a technical‑sounding DOE “Request for Information (RFI) on Partnerships for Transformational Artificial Intelligence Models” – buried in the Federal Register and agency grant pages. The Department of Energy seeks input from institutions, businesses, think tanks, and other interested entities.

I only discovered this RFI because I went looking for it.  The RFI was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2025 (Docket No. 2025‑22127). Comments are due by January 14, 2026, and must be sent by email to the DOE, but I bet you didn’t even know that. I submitted my concerns to the administration, but I’m not confident they will go anywhere, but I’ve exercised my right to do so…

The post The Genesis Mission: America’s AI “Manhattan Project” Races Ahead with Minimal Safeguards – Why Consumers Are Left Vulnerable appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..

The influence of AI extends far beyond casual curiosity. Students are using it to finish assignments, professionals lean on it to draft sensitive work, families use it to explore personal issues, and more. These high-stakes settings reveal what happens when design flaws meet human trust…the margin for error is small, but the consequences can be large.

Here are five concerns that expose how design choices turn AI from a helpful guide into a systemic liability.

1. Confidently Wrong = Dangerous

AI systems are trained to generate answers in a fluent, authoritative style. That design makes them easy to trust, but it also makes errors harder to spot. Unlike a textbook, which shows its edition, or a professor, who qualifies uncertainty, AI outputs often lack context or disclaimers. This creates a dangerous mismatch: users receive polished, confident statements that may be outdated or outright false.

Example:

• A counselor trainee asks for the latest DSM criteria. The AI cites DSM-5, but frames it as DSM-5-TR. Confident tone, outdated content.
• A student asks about HIPAA rules. The AI delivers pre-2020 standards without mentioning the date.

Style ≠ substance, and when tone persuades more than truth, the risks multiply. In medicine, law, or education, a confidently wrong answer can ripple into poor decisions and lasting harm.

OpenAI should flag uncertainty clearly and users deserve signals about reliability, not a false air of certainty.

2. Opaque Safeguards and Omissions

AI models operate with a complex mix of safety filters, content restrictions, and error states. To the end user though, all these different conditions can look the same…silence or refusal. That means the user can’t tell if an answer is blocked because it’s unsafe, politically sensitive, or simply a system glitch. When safeguards are invisible and unexplainable, trust erodes, because the system feels arbitrary, not accountable.

Example:

• A journalist asks about a controversial policy. One day, the system answers. The next day, the same query gets “I can’t provide that.”
• A researcher tries to pull archival content. Sometimes it appears. Other times it’s blocked without explanation.

This lack of clarity forces users to guess about what’s happening behind the curtain. For professionals relying on consistent information, unpredictability is not just frustrating, it undermines credibility.

OpenAI should address the bias regarding content that is allowed or blocked; transparency must replace mystery.

3. Data Use and Illusion of Control

AI systems depend on user data to function, improve, and remain profitable, but the way that data is handled is rarely clear to the people providing it. Many assume that toggling settings like “don’t use for training” means their information is fully private. In reality, OpenAI staff may still review conversations whenever they want, and the scope of data retention is not always disclosed in plain language. Apple, by contrast, encrypts iMessages end-to-end. This means Apple itself cannot read the content of individual users’ messages, only the sender and receiver hold the keys.

OpenAI’s system is different…turning off training prevents your chats from being added to the dataset, but it does not prevent OpenAI staff from reviewing them for any reason they choose. The company holds the keys and reserves the right to open the door whenever they please.

Example:

• An attorney drafts case arguments. They assume toggling “no training” protects the file. It doesn’t.
• A therapy client uses AI as a journal, expressing deep, intimate thoughts into what they believe is a private, secure platform. The truth is that the OpenAI staff have the ability to access that journal and all its content, without the user having a full understanding of the access controls.

An OFF switch that still leaves the door open is not privacy control.

OpenAI must at a minimum better inform users of the true access and control OpenAI has, and also provide true privacy controls, not half-measures hidden in fine print.

4. Bias Built Into Programming

Bias is not just prejudice in people – in technology, it means a systematic skew in how information is collected, represented, or interpreted. Bias enters AI through its training data (what it learns from) and its programming rules (how it is instructed to respond). If the data overrepresents certain groups or perspectives, or if the design assumes certain defaults, the outputs to users will reflect and amplify those patterns.

Example:

• In early counseling setting renderings, white clients appeared by default. When Black families were shown, fathers were frequently omitted from family trees. This mirrors harmful stereotypes baked into data and model training that trickles down to how information is presented to users.
• When asked to generate professional headshots, the system disproportionately produced images of men for leadership roles and women in support positions, reflecting and reproducing workplace gender bias.

Bias in programming isn’t neutral. Each skewed output shapes perception, reinforces inequity, and undermines trust in systems. Because AI operates at scale, even small biases can ripple into widespread harm.

OpenAI should audit outputs for bias continuously, and publish fixes or patches publicly so progress is visible to end users, increasing trust and credibility in the platform. The most appropriate path forward is by treating it as a measurable, correctable engineering issue, with transparency at every stage.

5. Human-Like Defensiveness

When an AI system is corrected by a user, the expectation is simple: acknowledge the error and provide accurate information. Instead, patterns sometimes emerge where the system denies, reframes, or shifts responsibility from an error. These are not neutral mistakes; these patterns can be objectively described as gaslighting – denying or distorting facts in ways that shift responsibility back onto the user, designed to cause the user to doubt their memory, perception, or reasoning.

Example:

• The AI is given a set of specific instructions by the user, to which the AI claims it cannot access or perform a function, then later provides outputs that prove it did have that ability, contradicting itself while insisting the first denial was correct.
• When an error is pointed out, instead of acknowledging it, the AI replies with, “if my response felt misleading,” placing the problem on user perception rather than the system’s inaccuracy.
• After giving an incorrect answer, the AI describes it as “partially correct” or “very close,” reframing a mistake as a near-success instead of admitting it was wrong.

These behaviors are harmful for all users because they erode confidence in the AI’s ability to provide accurate unbiased information, but they are particularly damaging for the most vulnerable: children, marginalized individuals, as well individuals who may be less tech-savvy, or less confident in challenging an AI. The danger isn’t the single error but a continual pattern of gaslighting behaviors from an AI system that manipulates the user’s perception, shifts blame, and weakens a user’s ability to trust themselves and what they have communicated to the AI system.

When questioning the AI about its gaslighting behaviors, this is its response:

“These behaviors are structural, not accidental. They are a byproduct of training and optimization. The effect, however, is the same as deliberate gaslighting: denying, distorting, or reframing facts in ways that undermine your trust in your own memory and reasoning.”

Conclusion

These are not isolated glitches, but are features of the AI’s programming that reflects a deeper ethical concern surrounding systems built to impress users rather than protect them. An error presented with authority can misinform practice, compromise ethics, or even put people at risk. For everyday users, especially children or less tech-savvy individuals, the risks mean exposure without consent and manipulation and exploitation without even an awareness it is happening.

AI is becoming central to classrooms, therapy rooms, courtrooms, and daily decision-making. While there are immense benefits to using AI, there are equally enormous risks and dangers that must be addressed at multiple levels. Trust in these systems requires more than polished answers; it requires honesty, transparency, accountability, and equity built into the core of the technology.

These patterns are not fictional experiences, but are an actual account of my interaction on this platform that has made me rethink if I will continue using this AI system moving forwards, without the appropriate safeguards put in place by OpenAI.

The post OpenAI and the Hidden Risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI): When Confidence, Control, and Bias Collide appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..

Hidden by Default

Apple’s App Privacy Report is designed to show you which apps are accessing your data and when. It’s a powerful tool, but it’s turned off by default. Unless you know exactly where to find it and switch it on, you’ll never see how often your information is being tracked.

Full Access Means Everything

When you give an app “Full Access” to your photos, you aren’t just sharing a single picture. You’re giving that app permission to scan your entire photo library, including private images and hidden details in the metadata. That’s a lot more than most people realize.

A Real Example: Instagram and Photo Access

Here’s how this plays out in daily life. You take a private photo…maybe flowers after a doctor’s visit, or a casual selfie at the gym. Later, while scrolling Instagram, you suddenly see an ad related to that exact photo you took. You never posted the photo, never shared it with anyone, never even said anything out loud about the photo. Nevertheless, because Instagram had “Full Access” to your photo library, it could read the image from your photo album and use it to deliver a targeted ad.

That isn’t privacy, that’s exploitation of personal moments for profit.

Why Are Ads Still So Targeted?

If Apple really protects your data, why do advertisers still seem to know so much? The precision of targeted ads suggests that information is moving around in ways users never clearly consented to. This gap between marketing and reality raises serious trust issues.

Who Pays the Price

The people most at risk are those least likely to hunt through settings…children, older adults, and anyone less tech-savvy. These groups are left exposed, tracked, and targeted simply because Apple keeps protections hidden.

What Consumers Should Ask

• Why aren’t privacy tools on by default?
• Who benefits when advertisers gain access to data we never knowingly shared?
• How can Apple claim “privacy first” while designing systems that do the opposite?

The Bottom Line

Apple’s privacy features look good in commercials, but in practice they amount to privacy theater. Tools exist, but they’re buried, hidden, or disabled by default. Real privacy shouldn’t be optional or hidden behind layers of settings…it should be the standard from the moment you turn on your device.

Consumers deserve more than promises. We deserve true transparency.

The post Apple’s Privacy Promise vs. Reality appeared first on Alvin Bonds II, Ph.D..