Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

AI is incredibly powerful, but clients today are looking beyond the hype. The companies winning with AI are not the ones replacing people blindly, but the ones combining strong talent with the right AI tools. In sales, relationships, trust, negotiation, and understanding client pain points still require human intelligence. AI can accelerate can accelerate pour workflows, research, outreach, and analytics, but it works best as an enabler, not a replacement.

His words seem impressively in line with what we can realize when we read the SpaceX filing. Taking energy directly from the Sun to fuel AI feels self-serving, something useful exclusively for the company to raise money, but not for people. AI is an amazing thing as long as it's supportive and improves our lives, but it's not mandatory in everyone's life. Nevertheless, it looks like we will need other planets to live and we're already not able to produce enough energy. And for what, exactly?

OMG (literally) does this new encyclopedia mean we won't be singing anymore... ... Allelu-IA? 😳

I will say this. I can understand this analogy - for sure. It makes sense (as do other similar analogies about AI and process and experience and what not). However, I am also wondering if maybe we shouldn't gloss over that, at least with this example, maybe the "process" is also underplaying an imbalance in the means of production? I am not trying to sidetrack this analogy too much (and I can see a lot of AI responses are happy to just nod and agree) - but I just thought that if we are going to look at AI as a process (which it very much is) - maybe we should also account for the idea that this process should also account for the equity of those (and the reality for those) who are and will be directly impacted by this technology. We have a very real opportunity to create "the good" with AI - and for sure, it can be a real level setting technology. But as is often the case, sometimes these revolutions come at the expense (time, effort, etc) of others. To have an understanding without the realization of the humanity behind it can be irresponsible (at the very least) and hurtful at expense of progress on the other side.

Edgar Perez Global Speaker Thank-You 🙏🏻💜🙏🏾

Clara, the framing of schools as civilizational institutions responsible for human formation — not just workforce pipelines — is exactly the kind of language this conversation needs more of. And your instinct to slow down before interpreting a 144-page theological document is itself a form of the discernment the encyclical is apparently calling for. That irony wasn't lost on me. The phrase that stops me is "shared discernment." Because discernment is not a output. It's a capacity. And like all capacities, it is built through practice — or eroded through substitution. This is what I think about constantly in my own work. I call it the Formation Effect: the quiet, cumulative shaping of a person that happens through repeated AI interaction. Not through any single exchange, but through the pattern of exchanges over time. The gradual outsourcing of reflection. The slow atrophy of the interior process that makes discernment possible in the first place. The encyclical's framing of schools as institutions of formation rather than function points directly at what's at stake. The question isn't only what AI does to society. It's what AI does to the person — incrementally, invisibly, interaction by interaction.

This is a significant shift in the AI governance conversation because it moves AI beyond technical capability and regulatory compliance into questions of human identity, moral responsibility, and societal direction. What stands out most is the recognition that governance is not only about aligning systems to policies, but about understanding the values, incentives, and assumptions embedded into the systems themselves. The idea that AI is becoming “invisible moral infrastructure” is especially important because many organizations still underestimate how deeply AI systems shape behavior, decisions, and institutional power. Whether people agree with the theological framing or not, the broader message is clear: the future of AI governance will require technologists, policymakers, ethicists, operational leaders, and humanities voices working together, not in isolation.

This is true, but also there is a greater good at the end of the tunnel. Ai is just in its infancy. What we see now is not what Ai will look like in 3 to 5 to 20 years. Great time to be alive to watch it all unfold Pascal BORNET

This explains the process really well because AI works best as a collaborator, not a shortcut. Strong systems are built through testing, refining, and thoughtful decision making.

the craftsmanship frame holds for maybe 6 more months. what feels like skill right now is mostly attention paid to a non-deterministic system. next model gen collapses 80 percent of that 'craft' into a single prompt, same way prompt engineering already collapsed.

Atheism only says God is absent from the material world. It does not mean humans are undeserving of dignity. The bigger issue I have, regardless of whether it is Anthropic or the Pope, is that saying what AI shouldn’t or can’t do is not the same as identifying what it is for. We speak of ethics and guardrails while avoiding the harder question: What is AI for? Is it that we don’t know the answer, or that stating the answer aloud would force us to sit with an uncomfortable truth? We built cars to cover more distance in less time. Yes, some people got very rich. But the purpose was legible. We built AI to do what? People are getting rich, but the why remains muddled.

People often underestimate how much structure matters when working with AI tools. When you treat it like a craft instead of a shortcut, the quality changes completely.

Proverbs 8 in the Bible, which relates to AI, has been forgotten or ignored.

Daniyal Javed J.

Can someone explain why some believe we are the smartest species on earth?

You means the best FOOTBALLS, that’s the sports name not soccer 🤣

The quickest also tended to be the least accurate.

So the irony here, as I suspect you know, is that those summaries, interpretations, and analyses are probably 90% AI generated. And I'm guessing those juicing the algorithms (Bezos? Altman? Thiel?) are probably not happy with Pope Leo, so I'd guess there are probably aspersions being cast among those analyses.

I wish we had this problem. I hate doing dishes and cleaning - where are the AIs taking that job from me? I'd love that

Like anything, it’s important to understand context . I’m in a rebuild phase , do you think my coach is going to tell me to fast ? Of course not, I need a high protein intake and healthy fats. This is the grey area “ the I fast “ but drive to work , or I fast and I’m overweight. One single action is not enough, it’s the combination. My Boron with resistance training. Is far more effective than just Boron .