Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

EQ gets talked about like a buzzword, but in real work it’s just how you show up when things get messy

I think it is an excellent paper and I agree with it entirely. I believe that coherence as a species is fundamental before we go much further with AI. If we zoom out (and zoom in) we are the only incoherent system operating in the observable universe. So, how can we construct artificial coherence when we haven't even fixed the root cause in ourselves first?

Clara Hawking Totally. AI literacy is not just teaching how to prompt, which is often the miss conception, but as you said, understanding when to use or not AI and understand how the outputs are created. I deeply feel that with better AI literacy, moving from the fear monger or AI hype, just the in between is what will make "humanity" or shall I say "society" better face this revolution.

I like to hear voices asking what kind of humans we are becoming, not just what kind of tools we are building.

EQ is such an underrated skill. Technical skills may open doors, but emotional intelligence is what helps people build trust, lead well, and grow long-term.

Definitely, strong models alone can’t compensate for weak architecture and governance, Michelle.

Most successful leaders are experts in emotional intelligence and must be very good at people management. These are helpful tips, Justin Wright

Clara Hawking — Clara — your framing of governance as "a process of shared discernment" is the line I will carry from your reflection. It reframes everything. You are right to call out the speed of confident summaries. I read it on the day — Bank Holiday Monday, hottest May day in British history, dog on the balcony — and I was honest with myself: this is a first read, not a deep read. What I could do was notice what resonated. Three things did, immediately and deeply: that AI is not morally neutral, that a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few, and that someone must always be answerable — an algorithm cannot be. Pope Leo XIV opened his encyclical with a question: are we building a new Tower of Babel, or a city where humanity can flourish together? I think that question deserves a serious answer — not from theologians alone, but from every engineer, every executive, and every board that is currently making decisions about how AI enters their organisation. Thank you for modelling what slow, serious reading looks like. I will be coming back to your reflections as mine deepen too. Magnifica Humanitas is worth reading. Whatever your faith, philosophy or practice.

Beautifully said. The point about slow reading feels essential. A document concerned with AI, truth, education, freedom, work, and social cohesion should not be metabolized at the speed of the feed. What resonates most is the framing of governance not as a static checklist, but as a process of shared discernment. That may be exactly what AI governance now requires: not only rules for systems, but institutions capable of helping us remain human while those systems reshape the conditions around us.

Yes, Trisha. Making AI accessible is what enables meaningful and scalable impact.

Strong breakdown this makes AI adoption feel practical instead of overwhelming.

I agree with you that this deserves slow reading, not instant certainty dressed up as analysis. What I find especially striking is that a papal encyclical brings AI out of the usual tech-policy bubble and places it inside a much older conversation about dignity, power, truth, and what kind of beings we are becoming. The point about humaneness also makes me think about faith, in the broadest sense: the ability to live with mystery, devotion, hope, and moral responsibility beyond calculation. It is hard to imagine AI ever developing a need for faith, or the vulnerability that makes faith possible. That may be one of the sharper differences between intelligence as performance and humanity as inner life.

A lot of people think EQ is about being nice all the time. In reality some of the highest EQ leaders I’ve met are the ones willing to have the hard conversation calmly instead of avoiding it.

The development of artificial intelligence is intrinsically linked to the deployment of infrastructures that demand investments of trillions of dollars. And who is able to do this if not the richest companies in the world? The State? Definitely not.

Emotional intelligence is becoming one of the most valuable leadership advantages in high-performance environments. 🙏🏼

The layoffs are not solely because of AI. AI exposed the problems already exists in the system. Layoffs are labelled as AI layoffs. You see when task is done 5-10 times faster with the help of AI tools, then it can't be totally unreal.

Last week I used ChatGPT to bake a cheesecake. Yesterday I polished my cover letter while applying for a new job. Today I’m learning German grammar using the same ChatGPT. What exactly is wrong with that? The Holy Inquisition managed to operate just fine without AI, and apparently that worked out “great” too. Is it even possible to come up with something more stupid than treating AI itself as some existential moral threat instead of just another tool humans use? And yes, I deliberately polished this comment with ChatGPT.

just can’t stand his reference to billionaires

Exactly, Martin. Clarity is what turns complexity into something usable.

Great insights SAURABH SINGH! The current unit economics are definitely a reality check. However, do you think this is a permanent ceiling or just the "dial-up" phase of AI pricing? I'm curious when infrastructure costs might mature and drop enough to flip that 23% MIT metric.