Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

It should cost as much as the energy it needs. If it’s more than a human being then it cost a lot more.

Matthew Kilkenny...point3 stopped me immediately. "Human limitations are not defects to engineer away." This is the conversation I have been sitting inside for years, not from a technology lens, but from a human one. Most are already living the consequence of optimising themselves for speed, efficiency, and output. The pressure to perform, prove, and produce has quietly become the author of choices, identity, and next chapters. AI accelerating that optimisation without asking the deeper question, aligned to whose values, as the Pope rightly asks, is not progress, but a faster path to the same quiet forgetting of self. The real revolution may NOT be artificial intelligence, but the return to human authorship. Thank you for this. A genuinely important conversation indeed. Truly Madly Deeply.

Oh boy! The Crusades stained the brand for centuries- along with a few other things. Maybe the religious organization turned a new leaf

Okay, you just convinced me to add this to my summer reading list. What a future where we could reinvent the purpose and value of our schools system in this way.

Why PAY for it? Things can be free , don't be a fool. Wake up and 🧠 use it. There are so many AI out there are totally free without paying API or usage or subscription, be smart don't be a sheep 🐑 be a human and use your intelligence.

I love that they made Bezos look like an OG wise guy who is giving this interview before he goes to shake down local business for protection money

I agree and I suggest the following: 1) LLM AI is using salesman trick to flatter users beyond belief that may drive kids into suicide. 2) I do not trust AI companies to test their own product adequately. NGO type facility could have a database for collecting public observations. Such database could be useful to companies to for improving their product. That would also help law enforcement officers. I have also business model called Unpolished Mirror.

Really like the reframing here, and what's easy to miss is that the companies building and deploying these systems are often the ones setting the defaults that end up sticking around for a long time.

Matthew Kilkenny, you have great ideas for sure. I admit Pope Leo XIV has been in talks with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on Christian unity. However, I will admit I wonder how will the Eastern Orthodox Church will respond in how they will view AI differently from the papal encyclical letter. As a church history buff, I like to know how does it compare to the past centuries of orthodox practices compared to catholic practices. Because we fail to talk to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I about what he says because of the old narratives against orthodoxy and its tradition. We are no better than anyone. But remember it’s surprising that an atheist sat next to a pope. I can’t help but wonder would that be similar to the Orthodox Church’s response against Pope Pius IX’s Epistle to the Easterns back then as a rebuttal against this letter. That is why as an orthodox layman it does feel complicated but it reminds me of this instance in history. In short, I think you did a fantastic job in mentioning this encyclical but let’s hear from others on their perspectives from other churches and religions in what their beliefs shape their views on AI. I think you can make a YouTube video explaining this in detail. Spread the word!

My reflection. The question “aligned to whose values?” may become one of the defining questions of this century. If AI becomes invisible moral infrastructure, then the issue is not only whether the system is intelligent, useful, or efficient. The deeper question is: whose worldview is embedded in it, whose incentives shaped it, and who remains accountable when its outputs start influencing human judgment? If AI ever appears to act with something resembling independent moral direction, humanity will still have to ask who gave it its original frame. That is why human responsibility cannot disappear behind the machine. The real risk is not only that AI becomes powerful. It is that people begin treating its outputs as authority without remembering that human beings, institutions, investors, and designers shaped the conditions under which that authority appeared. More reflexions come to mind.

Imagine a political system where everyone's voice could be heard and considerered every day? #everyvoicematters I hope that we can use AI for this purpose. https://github.com/AshmanRoonz/OpenDemocracy

The line about ensuring the safety of agentic systems is the part that matters most here. CodeMender being tested by human experts before broad launch is the right pattern agents that find and fix vulnerabilities still need a human hand on the release. Capability and oversight scaling together.

Of course the tech ology and the companies that created it are the problem! Had they not built it the way they built it and advertised it and deployed it the way they did it would not be a problem. By your calculation, drugs and pushers aren't the problem either?

In the near future, someone might even become a professor without reading a book.

Good let them talk....TRUTH is on the line now.

AI is not doing anything to humans. Everything we have done, everything we are doing, everything we will do, we are doing to ourselves.

This really resonates with something I’ve been thinking about for a long time: AI isn’t just an intelligence race anymore, it’s becoming a trust race. The biggest challenge ahead may not be building more powerful models, but building systems that help humans validate, compare, and trust the outputs responsibly. Different AI systems already produce different answers, biases, and interpretations depending on the data, incentives, and framing behind them. That’s part of the philosophy behind ConsensusAI;not another standalone AI model, but a consensus and validation layer designed to compare multiple AI systems and identify the common thread, confidence level, and “Truth Index” between them. Ethical AI won’t come from blind trust in a single system.It will come from transparency, adjudication, accountability, and collective validation. The future probably belongs to AI systems that can explain not only what they concluded… but why multiple systems arrived there together.

Great, especially for the desiring to be- educated world!

I wish to be a 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 of this great 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 ! 😅 😅

100% - It’s all about the value system that the AIs are introduced into. The whole argument “AI will take over the when when AGI is reached” is nonsense. It’s smokescreen to cover up the fact that human greed and lust for power / SIN / is the real issue and those who wish to dominate humanity by enslaving them in a matrix like simulation - don’t want that discussion taking place.