Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)
Close reading of the corpus at each pipeline stage: raw → clean → relevant → coded.
4.3K
comments matched
· page 143 of 215
Building with Claude Code is like leading a skilled crew through every phase not just tossing blueprints over the wall Leonard!
AI isn’t expensive….misuse is…That’s the real headline behind this post SAURABH SINGH
Honestly, Day 3 is where the real magic happens. Banning words like "delve" or "leverage" is an absolute must-do..
It’s crazy how fast Claude’s tone changes from sounding like an over-enthusiastic corporate robot to a normal, functioning human once you give it a strict list of what not to say.
Saved this for my next cleanup day, Ruben Hassid!
Demis Hassabis Interesting product name choices. Y SynthID and why not SmithID? CodeMender or SecFixer? 🍔😳💭
the best AI workflows I’ve seen aren’t about asking for a full finished thing in one go. they’re about giving clear context, checking the output, spotting gaps, then tightening the next step Leonard Rodman, M.Sc. PMP LSSBB CSM CSPO Workato
Most people waste time learning AI tools instead of using AI to create something valuable.
Craft, don't just command.
It happens, and it had happened before too, the early stage computers were inefficient and slower as compared to Human calculators but does that mean We should have abandoned them. It’s just the first breakthrough, a lot more is yet to come. AI will make people’s life easier and prosperous in the near future.
I was really happy to see many of the points that are now in His Holiness first encyclical "Magnifica Humanitas" in my article from September 2023!
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7465350726932717568/
love this take, adoption curves don’t matter if your team isn’t confident enough to actually move with them
Pascal BORNET Most people still frame AI as a technology conversation when it is increasingly becoming a power and distribution conversation. The infrastructure gets built quietly, then the incentives shape everything after.
According to those involved in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry, AI is making great strides towards 'superintelligence'.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of the general public, it is making great strides towards 'super stupidity'.
The document that Pape has just approved is important, useful and necessary.
The only issue is that it refers to AI on a timescale of several decades.
Not just for today's AI or that of the next year or two.
So, the tech giants would do well to read it. Better still, however, they should revisit their plans, because for the moment AI falls more into the 'scam' category of my post below.
There is one small caveat, though: Pape has unwittingly acted as a public relations agent for Anthropic and its AI, Claude.
This is all the more ironic given that Claude is an AI used by the Pentagon, notably during the war against the theocratic regime in Iran.
https://www.angelogeorgedecripte.blog/en/post/artificial-intelligence-dream-nightmare-or-scam
This is the right framing. AI coding works best when you treat it like a build process, not a vending machine.
I called it a Federated Learning Model, but the concept is much the same: a collection of specialized models with a central orchestrator.
Demis Hassabis and Jensen Huang are my favorite Technology Gurus. Some special wiring in terms of chess expertise, great games masters and very strategic sensible thinking and hardworking plus super smart fellows. Whenever they speak there is always something new to learn, no hype just sense and amazing clarity,purpose 👌
Dr. Razali Koroh did you read the article? Or just the headline, and then made up your mind and commented, having . . . *not read the required texts* 🤷
Agreed, this isn’t a time to take no action at all.
AI coding still needs taste... judgment... and real problem solving Leonard
The structural shift you describe at societal level is already playing out inside individual organizations, and most aren't ready for it. The same question applies: who decides what AI is allowed to decide, and who is accountable when it decides wrong? In most organizations I observe, that question has no answer. Not because nobody cares, but because the decision architecture was never built.The societal debate matters. But the organizational version of this question is already urgent, and I've spent years building the answer.
The shift wasn't just inevitable; it’s an absolute mathematical necessity.
While the current pushback focuses heavily on trust and disruption, it ignores the looming demographic bottleneck. Most Western countries are currently sitting well below the replacement fertility rate ($2.1$ births per woman). We are staring down an unprecedented labor shortage and an aging population that the existing workforce simply cannot sustain long-term.
When a society's natural birth rate can no longer replace its workforce, investing in technological "replacement" capability isn't a luxury or a corporate cash grab—it’s a survival strategy. The friction we are seeing right now is real, but macroeconomics doesn't care about sentiment. If you don't have the human capital to run an economy, you either manage a managed decline, or you build the automated infrastructure to bridge the gap.