Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

AI is not costly compared to humans. AI is costly because companies are trying to build things at a scale humans alone could never execute.

People has started to use LLM models for simple task automations as well. Identification of genuine use cases and optimizing the usage of tokens using very refined prompt engineering will define the success.

A power tool in skilled hands - that’s the key

Testing and securing software infrastructure remains a major challenge for growing startups

I TAKE RAW HONEY.GINGER,TUMERIC.CARDOMON.OREGANO.SPICES MIX EAT IT ONCE EVERYDAY.FOR BETTER BRAIN POWER.

This is where AI is becoming really interesting. The shift is no longer just human → AI assistant, but human → AI teams. I think the biggest transition ahead isn't replacing developers — it's changing the role of developers. The future engineer may spend less time writing every line of code and more time defining goals, constraints, workflows, and orchestrating specialized agents. But there's also a second challenge: coordination. More agents don't automatically mean better outcomes. Memory, context sharing, decision quality, and execution consistency become critical. That's one of the ideas we're thinking about with Autoflowly: not just creating agents, but helping founders and teams orchestrate systems of agents that can collaborate around building products and businesses. Interesting times ahead. The question may no longer be: "How good is your AI?" It may become: "How well does your AI team work together?" 🚀

#CFBR

Cool

Problem is we can't control the criminals! Like other things in life, treat it's use with respect.

Not if you go local. And we are doing exactly that for Indian businesses. Helping them deploy Local AI. Preventing US tech giants from from stealing business ideas, information, pii and everything and making AI available for cheep for Indian companies. Not your LLM, not your AI. Don’t share your business info and customer data to some external black box. Let Zosma AI help you do the same using local ai at scale.

Finally someone said it out loud!

I agree. The real question is not only whether AI is “aligned,” but what kind of human record it stabilizes under pressure. I recently explored this through functional emotion, AI alignment, and the awareness tensor: emotion-like AI structures may not be feeling, but they can still shape restraint, salience, and moral behavior. That makes AI ethics anthropological, not merely technical.

Nicolás A. Fernández Sequeiros

Álvaro Criado

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.