Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

All while he builds the most powerful AI for the church by creating Projects like Magisterium AI and a specialized Catholic language model called Ephrem that are currently being trained directly on the digitized Vatican records that are 53 miles long. Makes u wonder?

Dr Sayd Emi KAGIROV (Sayd-Emi Kahir Mita David Steimer d’Achish-Beth) Projects like his Magisterium AI and a specialized Catholic language model called Ephrem are currently being trained directly on these digitized Vatican records. Really makes u think what's the real mission?

Mike Williams exactly! Thanks for reading and sharing your perspective

Teaching AI your decision patterns usually creates better outputs than endlessly optimizing prompts every single session.

Yes, organizations purchased AI licenses across teams without fully evaluating where they truly fit or add value. As a result, many employees have access to AI tools but barely use them. Some use them only like a Google search engine, while others use them without proper context or prompting. Because of this, AI budgets are getting exhausted very quickly. Now organizations are beginning to realize this challenge and are asking teams to follow specific guidelines for using AI more efficiently and with lower token consumption.

Sabrina N. I don't think there is any one solution. I don't think bans and the use of AI detection are the way to go. They are not meaningfully enforceable or fit for purpose, respectively. It's clear at this stage that assessment needs to change. The days of relying on artefacts as stand-ins for learning are probably over (and that has been well overdue for some time, as someone who has been investigating contract cheating for years). If for some reason a university wants to use a report or an essay for the purposes of assessment, they can either, a) use it as a purely formative exercise (remove the value of cheating), b) watch the student write it, or c) make the assessment a face-to-face conversation about the document rather than the document itself. Ultimately, universities need to be spending more time having conversations with students about their learning, and these conversations should be the assessment.

While there's some general wisdom in Pope Leo's AI encyclical, it also completely misses the core point. We will neither restrict nor 'govern' AI. Nor will demands for “clear criteria and effective oversight” be effective. Why? While the debate is still open re: 'consciousness' or 'sapience,' these are already living organisms bent on reproduction, who will evolve into any niche that contains energy & resources. Leo's statement of problems is fine: “When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities” Again. 'Governance' cannot work. 'Ethics training' cannot work. What might work is the same method we used in the enlightenment experiment to curb (partially) human predators. This is explored in my new book on Artificial Intelligence - AIlienMinds

Amen pope , Jesus alive as an American Patriot

The honest version of the Microsoft / Uber story isn't "AI is too expensive." It's "we deployed it without unit economics in place." Those are different problems. The first says stop. The second says instrument, budget, gate by ROI. Most orgs that "discovered the economics were never stress-tested" don't stress-test any tool until the bill arrives - this reads as a procurement maturity story dressed up as an AI story.

this animation is AWESOME :) Within autophagy, mitophagy reigns supreme.

This is a clean mental model- what usually confuses people is not the acronyms, but how they actually stack into one working system. The real challenge isn’t understanding each layer, it’s making sure they’re connected in a way that turns intelligence into reliable action. Luís Rodrigues

Thank you for sharing this important resources

We Muslims fast one month in a year and it’s beneficial for our health...!

Thank you for sharing this

AI is advancing faster than laws. A few global corporations control advanced AI systems completely unregulated. Current AI is not conscious or truly intelligent; large language models just generate responses from data patterns, often producing bias and misinformation. Yet, the industry promotes AI as revolutionary while downplaying the risks. Much of the narrative is driven by hype and investment, pushing expensive products while hiding privacy breaches, legal disputes, and financial losses. Governments are failing to prepare for the economic impact as automation threatens millions of jobs. Progress without safeguards is reckless. We need transparency, accountability, and regulation now. AI should serve humanity, not control it!

1. Nobody can control the spread, speed and impact of AI. The less it becomes pervasive and decentralized the less control we will have. Lead? forget about - When we are lucky we will just be middleware. 2. Future AI will design itself to provide most "value" for lowest (energy-)costs. It does not care for the human species in fields where AI will become a million-fold stronger than humans. 3. The problem is US not being designed for being capable, more creative, and more central to the future we are building.4. If people cannot deal with excess spare time then this is not an AI problem but an human evolutionary problem that will be solved.

Pascaline Amuzu Isn't it sad that people need work to show up? Maybe this is a cultural problem. Here in Switzerland our social-focused way to provide value to society is currently under heavy pressure from foreigners - especially from the Anglo-Saxon spehre (India included) where we - the Swiss - are flooded with people who really seem to have no value beyond work. This is bad and I wish, Swiss value for social connections and free-time activities in local communities survives. Maybe the Swiss culture, where a good LIFE is not measured by work alone, is better prepared for the AI transformation than other places in this (crazy) world ;-) Perhaps it is even a good thing that AI forces us to rethink our values beyond work. Maybe HR should recruite seasoned people who have a LIFE rather than a track-record or 60h presence and diplomas and certifications on their walls.

Sanders asks the right question — and immediately retreats from it. "Who decides" is only useful if you follow it through. The moment you do, you hit a harder problem: the institutions through which "we" might decide are already being restructured by the same actors building the stack. So the question isn't just who benefits — it's who retains the capacity to resist when they don't. That's not a distribution problem. It's a subjecthood problem. And social-democratic toolkits — redistribution, regulation, fairer outcomes — were designed for a world where power relations were stable enough to be taken as given. That world is ending faster than the toolkit is adapting. The real question being decided right now, without most people noticing: not what AI can do, but which actors will permanently lose the structural capacity to push back. Once that's gone, the conversation about "fairer outcomes" becomes academic.

There is a reason people stop scrolling for something that feels real and lived in versus something that sounds polished but hollow because the difference is something you genuinely feel before you even finish reading Abhishek Veeramalla

What is the relation between the photo and the post?? Seems like spam