Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

Stop debating and start creating is the real future. Debating creates "noise".

For decades, the Georgia Guidestones stood as a chilling monument to a vision of the future that many believe exposed the ambitions of the global elite. To critics, the message was unmistakable: humanity itself was to be engineered, managed, and reduced into a compliant servant class existing solely to sustain the comforts and power of a privileged few. Now, as robotics and artificial intelligence advance at breathtaking speed, that once-dismissed vision no longer feels like distant speculation. The emerging world appears increasingly designed around automation serving concentrated wealth and influence; a future where machines cater to every need of the powerful, while ordinary people risk becoming economically obsolete, politically marginalized, and socially expendable. What was once etched in granite now feels, to many, like a blueprint quietly unfolding in real time.

🥴😬🥴😬

Sanders asks the right question — and immediately retreats from it. "Who decides" is only useful if you follow it through. The moment you do, you hit a harder problem: the institutions through which "we" might decide are already being restructured by the same actors building the stack. So the question isn't just who benefits — it's who retains the capacity to resist when they don't. That's not a distribution problem. It's a subjecthood problem. And social-democratic toolkits — redistribution, regulation, fairer outcomes — were designed for a world where power relations were stable enough to be taken as given. That world is ending faster than the toolkit is adapting. The real question being decided right now, without most people noticing: not what AI can do, but which actors will permanently lose the structural capacity to push back. Once that's gone, the conversation about "fairer outcomes" becomes academic.

The real question behind AI is exactly right, who benefits and who sets the direction is the most important conversation we're not having enough

Why do we always have to make it us vs them. The pot cannot call the kettle black.

AI should be used to look inwards not outwards

The real concern isn't just what AI can do, it's how the power dynamics shift. I've seen tech solutions that could help millions but end up benefiting just a handful of people, Pascal. If we don't address this, we risk repeating history where innovation creates more inequality.

Really like the reframing here, and what's easy to miss is that the companies building and deploying these systems are often the ones setting the defaults that end up sticking around for a long time.

The problem isn't with ability, it's with the distribution structure

Oh no. Farm equipment will replace horse and plow then all the farmers and agricultural workers will be out of work. -- no -- they will be more productive and have more free time. This is not the first technological revolution ever.

There's a man who wants more power than the value of what he produces.

Someone will lead in AI. It might not always be us, but for now, we lead.

Jennifer Lowder There is a better way than LLMs and a better way overall. https://universal-natural-intelligence-prec.vercel.app/about.html

A very valid point to consider while developing the AI governance framework.

Imagine him as president!!! Makes me think of the series News Room where intelligence actually have merit.

Really thoughtful perspective

This is the conversation we should be having. Technology has always increased productivity, but the real question is how the benefits are distributed. AI isn't just a technical revolution, it's an economic and organizational one. The decisions being made today about ownership, governance, and incentives may matter more than the models themselves.

Siempre la misma canción, unos inventan e invierten por su propio riesgo y la mayoría quiere usarlo sin riesgos ni cargos ni responsabilidades, claro que es un negocio, pero colateralmente hay soluciones que están cambiando el mundo, sin entrar en si lo facilita y mejora o lo complica y lo intoxica. Un cuchillo es un arma que mata o un utensilio para cortar jamón de forma óptima, por supuesto el cuchillero tiene que cobrar su trabajo y artesanía, y habrán luego buenos y malos “utilizadores de cuchillos”

Exactly. 💯