Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

Emotional intelligence is not just a soft skill. It is a system. I ran it through the CGOSTI Transformer. Here is the G output. Goal: Individuals consistently respond to people and situations with self-awareness, empathy and composure — building trust, resolving conflict and creating environments where others feel safe to contribute and grow. Every one of the eight behaviours you listed — empathy, trust, pausing before reacting, owning mistakes — are the Objectives and Tactics of that Goal in action. The system already exists. Most people just have not mapped it. 🔗 cgosti.mightyunits.com #CGOSTI #EmotionalIntelligence #EQ #MightyUnits #Clarity #Leadership #SystemsThinking #AI

Prashant K. Sahni Honestly one of the sharper takes in this thread. AI did not create the inefficiency, it just made it visible and gave companies a cleaner narrative to act on it.

I'm glad OpenAI and the Vatican are in sync, but I'm skeptical of the AI corps or governments taking it to heart. The tech elite ignored the meaningful gesture among its own ranks: Three years ago the AI "community" put aside competition to craft and sign an open letter to slow development for humanity's sake. This encyclical is more than a warning, it's a call-to-action. Will it get into the right hands?

Pascal BORNET The most important AI decisions today are about governance, ownership, and distribution of value. Technology scales quickly, but institutional accountability evolves far more slowly.

The Pope compared the unchecked AI race to a modern “Tower of Babel,” warning that technology without morality risks creating an anti-human future disconnected from conscience, truth, and responsibility. Importantly, the Vatican stated this is not opposition to technology itself. The document acknowledges AI’s enormous potential in medicine, science, and education, but argues humanity must guide technology — not become subordinate to it. “The future cannot belong to machines alone. Humanity must remain at the center.” Source:Reuters — May 25, 2026“Quotes from Pope Leo’s document warning of world AI risks”

Clara Hawking- " But more importantly, it frames schools not merely as places of skill training or workforce preparation, but as central moral institutions responsible for helping society remain human in the digital era." - In final analysis, the genAI problem is a School problem, because higher learning schools are ones which pioneered &further developed genAI, along w. continuing partnership w. industry. Schools have not only played it both ways but ALL WAYS. And from young Marvin Minski at MIT (1960) to elder Marvin Minski (2008) w. patronage of J. Epstein. We have also seen this problem w. schools when they were pushing finance &"get rich quick with finance careers" which created the spirit ending in 2008 crisis in larger economy. 3 MIT economists are said to have been at heart of financial instruments that plummeted the system. Schools been pushing idea among the Youth that life is about innovation &materialism, and nothing else. Their most important objective not social welfare but endowment. This is all final result of secularism, which has completely ousted humanism in today’s world, having been central to educational system. Whether Pope Leo &encyclicals can change this situation for a better world should be everybody’s hope.

Justin Wright great list. This is always what we’re headhunting for in executive search and recruitment, especially in a day where we need to put the human back in human resources in the artificial terror intelligence era. These are not things you can find on a résumé, and these are often things that AI tools will screen out without even noticing. Hence the value of having human to human executive recruiter interviews.

Using WALL-E as a futuristic reference for “taking care of all our problems” misses the point of the film entirely. But as usual Bernie is spot on when questioning the narratives of the few people who own the tech. If we’re going to use non-fiction narratives for visualising the future then Neuromancer should be the reference point. AI needs governance. No if’s, but’s or maybe’s

Exactly. The real question isn’t what AI can do, but who controls it and how the value it creates is distributed. Those defaults are being set now, and once they scale, they’re much harder to change than to question.

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.

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 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.

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?

Thanks for emphasizing "a process of shared discernment.” In that context, it is valuable to share one's inklings early and often while recognizing that it will take many reads over time and over iterative interactings with others about one's evolving sensemaking. Some of the reactions to one's inklings will be humbling. Humility is a point of discernment that confront the reality of the world and other people's perceptions of it. Shared discernment is both aspirational and trajectorial. The point is development of more than the self. The more existentially meaningful context and purpose of development is the flourishing of I-Thou. An important implication in my early reads of the encyclical is that shared discernment is not simply a context for generative AI, that is, something human to keep it honest. Generative AI can be brought into the process of shared discernment. Discernment with generative AI would not be simply about making generative AI more human. It would about helping us be more human.

The truth exists. Every religion has books full of truth and people who don’t actually apply it. The Sermon on the Mount is a systems lesson. Jesus focused far more on how people live than on institutional status. Whatever your tradition, leaders should be judged by the fruit they produce, not the titles they hold. If Pope Leo XIV keeps human dignity at the center of the AI debate, that’s a conversation worth having.

I fundamentally believe that AI cannot drive the growth companies expect by removing human work force. However, it can definitely be a force multiplier for people and companies who learns to work with it. I think doing this will save more money for businesses than the tangible /Intangible benefits of replacing humans with AI and sharing some direct benefits companies will have. 1. Reduced OpEx because it makes teams 10x productive and efficient 2. More time/bandwidth/headspace for teams to focus on things where AI cannot be trusted or used. 3. Companies save money on rework due to human errors.

SAURABH SINGH AI is a powerful copilot, but enterprise-level reasoning, critical thinking, understanding business context, and architecture is still a human responsibility. AI can speed up execution, but it does not reduce the mental effort.

There is a new reality that we as humans need to learn how to deploy. Evolving technologies can improve the quality of human life at a population level. To reduce human suffering and improve how we live and interact both locally and globally. For example, once we accept that the tech can drive our vehicles better than humans, we stop people from dying senselessly and save (redirect) billions of dollars currently lost to property damage, insurance and legal costs. Once we realize that real time data can reinvent our health care system from remedial to preventative, again we save lives, reduce suffering and save so much cost we can provide health care to all. Our challenge is to realize that if we don't apply the technologies for good others will use them for evil and the risk is that they will have power over those who cannot (or don't) use the tech. I think many see AI as the "Sky Net" from the Terminator movie but in the end, it is just software that can be used for good or evil. If we don't ingrain morals and ethics into our overall behavior (at a population) then evil will take over whether its analog or digital. Perhaps our leaders need to be more focused on instilling morals/ethic and enforcing the law.

Clara Hawking This really resonates. In an always on age of AI, there’s a pressure to understand everything immediately to skim, summarize, conclude and move on. But that urgency is part of the problem. Attention is being pulled forward faster than our capacity to truly reflect. What stood out to me in your post is the idea of discernment as a process. That feels like the core human skill we’re at risk of losing If these systems are reshaping truth, education, and agency then our ability to slow down, sit with complexity, and choose where to place our attention becomes essential. Not just for governance but for staying human inside the system itself. Attention is everything.

Exactly. AI is powerful, but many companies treated it like a replacement strategy instead of a productivity tool. The real value still comes from human judgment, creativity, and problem solving,AI just accelerates it.