Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)
Close reading of the corpus at each pipeline stage: raw → clean → relevant → coded.
4.2K
comments matched
· page 119 of 210
Quite obviously we need to get this under control. The accumulated wealth and power are already going to just a handful of people. And that may not be the biggest problem. Planetary-scale threats require planetary-scale solutions. Einstein made this clear regarding the threat of nuclear war. Hawking issued the same warning targeting exactly this issue: March 8, 2017 The Independent headline “Without a ‘world government’ technology will destroy us,” says Stephen Hawking We need effective planetary-scale governance to address this imminent threat. The good news is, if we do this right, we can also address the climate crisis, nuclear weapons, etc. essentially any global threat that cannot be addressed by individual nation-states. Join the movement at occupyearth.org
Roger That!!
Really thoughtful framing I don’t think AI can be “disarmed” in the sense that competition, power and commercial incentives will simply disappear. But it can be slowed down, redirected and governed better — especially in education, where the stakes are not only productivity, but the formation of people. For me the key question is: who gets to define what “better learning” means? If it is only vendors optimizing for engagement, retention or scale, we will get one kind of education. If teachers, researchers, parents and students are genuinely involved, we may get something much more human. So maybe “disarming AI” is not about stopping the technology. It is about refusing to let speed, profit and geopolitical pressure become the only design principles.
Turns out replacing salaries with token bills isn’t the cost hack everyone thought. AI is a multiplier, not a replacement. Use it to make engineers 3x faster, not to fire them and hope the API covers the gap.
Luís Rodrigues - This is both funny and useful for layperson explanations.
The interesting part is that this moves AI from being a support layer into becoming part of the operational fabric of the state itself. At that point, competitive advantage is no longer just about deploying AI tools faster, but about how effectively institutions can govern, coordinate, and continuously adapt around autonomous execution at scale.
This hits hard because EQ is where leadership actually happens. The leaders who build psychologically safe teams where people speak up, disagree respectfully, and feel heard, aren't the ones with the highest IQ.
The clarity here matters: EQ isn't about being nice or avoiding hard conversations. It's about self-awareness, empathy, and handling conflict in ways that strengthen relationships instead of damaging them.
"Who decides what gets built. And who benefits when it works." AI is not suddenly introducing this question. This has always been the question to answer. AI I simply revealing and amplifying the importance of it.
Thank you for starting this conversation. We're particularly interested in the next steps after UNHR/SDGs, since that was the training set for our fictional AGI lead in Spark Hunter ( So we eagerly await your paper and look forward to tying the discussion of justice and dignity to rights and relationships a la Gunkel, Gellers, Coeckelberg et al.
This is the part many organisations still underestimate. AI itself is not the strategy. Incentives, governance, and access are. The long-term impact of AI will depend less on what the technology can do, and more on who controls the leverage it creates and how broadly the benefits are distributed.
His words will resonate for approximately 5 minutes, perhaps 10 with devout Catholics, and then they will disappear into the abyss like everything else these days
My 16-year-old daughter read a news summary of the encyclical and then pointed out how ironic was the note at the end of the article--that the summary had been generated by AI. I started reading the document yesterday afternoon. I took a break after paragraph 45, at the end of Chapter 1. I have 200 more paragraphs to go, though I confess, I skipped ahead to read the much-commented-on and now I know misrepresented part about war. I'll back-up again and read through. Maybe I could finish it today.
Basil C Puglisi Thank you for sharing this. I’m glad to see independent voices thinking seriously about these questions. There are actually a lot of people and organizations wrestling with similar issues from very different angles. You have frontier AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepMind trying to build and align increasingly powerful systems. You have AI safety and existential risk researchers worried about long term loss of control scenarios. You also have ethics and bias researchers focused on monoculture, surveillance, and embedded power structures in current AI systems, along with governance groups trying to figure out what accountability and international oversight should look like as these systems become more capable. You probably saw Anthropic’s constitution they put out. Your paper seems most connected to the pluralistic alignment folks, particularly the question of whose values these systems are ultimately being trained to represent. Who do you see as doing work most aligned with your approach right now?
Good to see a full stack resource that focuses on end to end systems instead of isolated demos. Most people get stuck at tutorials, so having production level examples with real architectures is actually where the learning starts to become useful.
Eating all day resembles a running engine. The motor never gets a chance to cool down. Parts break faster under constant pressure. Fasting simply turns the ignition key off.
AI for ALL, it is there when you really use it
Emotional intelligence really is the secret sauce for leading well and building a team that actually thrives.
Clara Hawking it is
I "accidentally" minored in Religion. I took so many religion courses on different religions and philosophies in the world, that I wound up a few credits short of a major in religion. That said... In all my years, this is the first Pope that seems to be putting teeth into world affairs that means something. He is not the typical, "Everyone... please... Can we just get along?" type of Pope.