Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Matthew Kilkenny We're all something. Obsequious praise bolstered by fictionalized, stalinesque propaganda to decorate your AI-generated "thoughts" is rather ironic, considering your "impassioned appeal" against the dark throes of weaponization of technology. I can't take people like you seriously. You get paid for this?

Honestly, repositories like this save people a lot of unnecessary confusion. Sometimes the hardest part of learning tech is not even the learning itself... it’s knowing where to start from without getting overwhelmed. Having everything structured in one place makes the process feel more approachable.

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

This resonates deeply. The conversation is shifting from AI capabilities to human responsibilities. Not just how we build intelligent systems, but how we preserve meaning, participation, dignity, and human agency together. The future may ultimately be defined by whether humanity evolves consciously alongside the intelligence it creates.

Torbjörn Maaherra thoughts on this one. Not sure I entirely agree

#successfulways #congrats

No worries, bruh. You’re on TV, you got your moment of fame, and you’re surrounded by people who just talk. So welcome to the club of talk doers. Well, they have "jobs", so you need to figure out (social engineer) how to get one of those * jobs and enjoy the sweet, good life blah blahism of fluffism.

Can we cite these findings in environmental reviews? Asking for a friend.

Build your own, we are only 5 years out from all these companies restructuring and everyone will be entry level, because the knowledge that those seniors hold on to will be fed into a SOP wiki for the juniors to query. Why pay 120k when you can pay 50k and augment?

Well AI is replacing humans for the context in it requires best architectural practices around security and cost optimization (token consumption) that relates directly to how its been used alot of components added up when narrowing this down. Its not like you gave the access to your engineers and tell them to use now as one task can be done by multiple prompts with different token consumptions that fairly changes the cost number alot. This requires training and architectural guidance on how you design internal AI systems. One thing to consider is when cost comes into picture then ethics won’t play much of a role..

Just remain poor and you'll starve anyway.

EQ is respect for self, others, and those you impact. It’s asking bold questions when everyone else is silent. Reading the room, understanding what feels different and asking something other than “are you okay?” It’s inclusion and acceptance of others without a qualifier. Great post.

Not for mag 7. They own their own hardware, models and software.

This is the conversation we should be having. Technology has always increased productivity, but the real question is how the benefits are distributed. AI isn't just a technical revolution, it's an economic and organizational one. The decisions being made today about ownership, governance, and incentives may matter more than the models themselves.

no one is listening. He better be careful, AI will have him partying with the Kardashians

One of the most interesting effects of AI in research may not be that it finds answers faster, but that it expands the search space of ideas worth exploring. Historically, many promising directions were abandoned because the cost of investigation was too high. By lowering the effort required to test hypotheses, verify intermediate steps, and explore alternative paths, AI allows researchers to allocate more of their time to creativity and judgment. The long-term impact is be less about replacing expertise and more about increasing the number of ambitious questions experts can pursue.

FYI: Ruy Fabila-Monroy

Skeptics: AI just produces low quality slop. The world's greatest mathematician: AI is very helpful for my work and research.

Tao is right that AI lowers the cognitive friction of exploring crazier paths. The harder question is what happens to the paths themselves. In research the value often sits in the discarded branches: why a direction was abandoned, what assumption broke, who decided to stop. When AI compresses that exploration, the reasoning trail compresses with it. You keep the result and lose the archaeology. This matters far beyond math. In any setting where a discovery has to be defended, reproduced, or audited later, "the model found it" is not an account of how. The preserved path is the artifact, not a nice-to-have. So the freedom Tao describes is real. The open problem is making the trail behind a discovery a first-class output, not a byproduct we hope to reconstruct afterwards.

The AI can expand the space of exploration and enable attempts that were previously impractical. The question that seems equally important to me is how to preserve the human processes of understanding that give meaning to those discoveries. Exploring more is valuable; understanding better remains essential.