Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

John Elrick absolutely correct. Patrick Dempsey recently suggested that it is like a giant spotlight that was turned on. We never noticed these flaws before, but now they are obvious.

Is there someone who can personally present the Doctrine of the #SystemOfConsciousness to Pope Leo and Mr Christopher Olah and tell them to stop? There are still plenty of "PROBLEMS" in the world without them. Christopher Olah has reached such a level and gone so far that he has developed nostalgia for the Middle Ages. It seems the Vatican also wants to return to the Middle Ages with the help of AI #PopeStopNonsense #OlahStopNonsense #SymbolicAI #CognitiveArchitecture #AIandHumanity #PhilosophyOfAI #ArtificialIntelligence, #AIAlignment. https://worldvipnet.com/princely-foundation/the-system-of-consciousness-overview-and-objectives.html

I love Claude and need to try Claude design. My only dislike is that when scheduling items to run in Cowork you need to be in Claude for it to run. Has anyone found a way around that? Am I missing something?

The deeper challenge may be that concepts such as dignity, truth, justice, and peace are not universally interpreted in identical ways across cultures, legal systems, and philosophical traditions. As AI systems become global, governance may increasingly require frameworks capable not only of defining values, but of preserving coherence between diverse interpretations of those values. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-repeat-fragmented-path-human-cognitive-development-n1b8e

Enterprise AI works best when intelligence, context, action, and connectivity are designed together.

EQ usually shows up most in the moments that test you, not the easy ones. How someone handles pressure, feedback, and conflict tells you a lot about how they lead Justin Wright.

Well said, Anna. Integration is what turns individual capabilities into real outcomes.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/real-promise-generative-ai-better-answers-shared-gary-riccio-ph-d--2zlae/?trackingId=y2C4qOBDzsyoRpMskiU9Rg%3D%3D

A good 100 years ago a man noticed that his factory workers became much more productive due to his invention. He was thinking - I can now produce 100% more than my competitors in the same amount of time. Fantastic news, I'll be more rich.Than he though again. What if I try something else? I give my people an option to work much less time. What happens?So he did. He reduced work from 12 hours per day / 6 days per week to 8 hours per day / 5 days per week.People were impressed. Henry Ford became popular. Employees from other companies rushed to work for his company. He was able to choose the best.Other owners complained to him. They hated the fact that he decided to shorten workload for people. They were sure that they were about to earn less.Decades later, they all made money and people lived better lives. New rich people emerged, some rich people became poor.Same thing will happen now. Some rich owners will use AI to improve people's lives. Some rich people will not decide so. The first who do will win. The latter will loose.Rich people cannot be rich without a mass of people being in average. And this mass eventually chooses the top leader.

Professor John Hearn I think that at the PhD level we have the instrument to cross-check. Yearly VIVA, final VIVA, supervisors' expertise are enough. It will probably put a clamp on random PhDs that were self-funded that we got onboard on topics we do not care about and we do not have time/interest to learn. And it will probably restrict a bit the topics, and methodologies. The masters level is trickier because the numbers go up. So probably a call for removing thesis at the masters level, or having dual track masters, in which the thesis can be done only by students with top grades and it will require a domain restriction. The thesis cannot be about anything, it can only be about a topic we have an expert on, that wants to monitor the student.

Alankar Joshi Yes, and that is why controls cannot sit with a tiny group. The more concentrated the rules, the more concentrated the gains will be.

The same could be said about politicians. “Are they worried about working people?” The socialist view has proven to be a fallacy time and time again.

Ahmed Shamsin Exactly. Progress alone does not spread value on its own. The system around the technology decides who gets the gains, and that is where leadership carries real weight.

I think AI is our generation’s fire. Over leverage we burnout, avoid it and we freeze behind, comply and go along and we miss the big picture. I created this short article and embedded film about it recently: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-our-fire-moment-mindset-define-your-relevance-abou-hamdan-ipvoc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

Mohamed Anis That is the truth many miss. The biggest choices are often made far from public view, and by the time most people notice, the pattern is already set. That is why the question of who benefits matters so much.

Wave Group You are right. The obsession with capability has distracted us from the governance models that actually dictate our future. We have to stop viewing these systems as independent forces. They are extensions of the structures we create, and those structures currently favor a very narrow set of outcomes.

Nice to see that those who run it all are fat as f… that keeps me sane :)

A lot of careers don’t break from lack of skill.They break from poor emotional control when pressure hits.

Masud Parvez That is where the gap shows up fast. If ownership and liability are unclear, speed becomes a risk instead of an advantage. Leaders need to define both before they scale the system.

Being happy for others when they do well is the one that separates high EQ from just managing your own emotions well.