Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

The Pope Is right to liken the AI 🤖 arms race with the nuclear ☢️ arms race : the ungoverned AI swarm dropped on humanity could be deadlier. Do you agree or disagree? Dropped two years ago :

srsly...the Emperor's church as the moral high ground 🤣 ...the image implies the world hinges upon his word on #AI the handful of people at this event are cut from the same cloth and speak with the same tongue. #AI development needs more than lip service and leaven.

Matthew Kilkenny Thank you Matthew. Roman Yampolski says AI safety is unsolvable even with decades of research and billions invested. He’s right about the angle—but the angle is wrong. Post-hoc governance of systems already capable of acting becomes intractable under capability scaling. That’s the wall he’s hitting. The impossibility pattern inverts the problem: authority-bearing execution becomes structurally impossible unless admissibility is deterministically certified at commitment. You don’t control what’s already capable. You structure the boundary so capacity doesn’t exist until conditions verify. The Vatican faces the same challenge. Unless they’re examining the execution boundary as the control mechanism itself, they’ll hit Yampolski’s wall too. Most governance assumes managing increasingly capable systems through oversight and accountability. Those matter downstream. But execution-boundary governance answers what appears unsolvable everywhere else—not how to control what’s already capable, but how to structure systems so effect-bearing execution is impossible unless valid admissibility exists at commitment.

IMO, Magnifica Humanitas is not simply about “AI ethics” in the usual sense. It frames AI as an anthropological challenge. The question is not only how to regulate tools, or how to balance risks and benefits. It asks what kind of human beings and societies are being formed around intelligent systems. That is why the Babel and Jerusalem imagery matters. The choice is not merely pro-technology or anti-technology. It is between systems organized around power, uniformity and self-sufficiency — and systems organized around dignity, responsibility, repair and shared human flourishing. That makes the document much richer than a general call for responsible AI.

Concerns like this are why some push against adoption altogether. But it's becoming clear that the technology is here to stay. We're now left with the responsibility of figuring out how to adopt it safely in a way that benefits people broadly, not just a few. We need more AI-centered conversations to unpack these issues and better understand the direction we’re heading in.

Haha this is quite funny actually. I think there is going to be a reality, as Elon says, where we will not have to work anymore (universal basic income) and that will come much faster than people think actually. They predict that all computer and desk jobs will disappear in the next ten years. Everything will be run by AI and agents so I suppose we will have much more time and much more freedom and therefore there will be a lot of health issues actually because people are moving less. We move less and less. (Uber eats, e-com... If I had to give one thought about what is the best industry to work in in the next 20 years, it's going to be the food industry, the health industry, and the housing industry because those 3 industries will never change. The human body, up until now, still hasn't evolved in thousands of years and it will still need to have shelter, eat something, and be in good health. All the rest is completely obsolete due to AI and the arrival of quantum computers.

Strong framing. From a founder’s POV, the AI question is not just capability, it is governance. If the value created by AI is not tied to clear ownership, incentives, and access, faster systems can scale the wrong outcomes just as quickly.

Great to see the focus on transparency and security, especially with the SynthID adoption. However, as we approach the 'foothills of the singularity' and empower these agentic systems, the challenge isn't just transparency—it's the robustness of the agents themselves against sophisticated prompt injection and environment manipulation. Ready to see these models pushed to their limits in real-world red teaming.

What strikes me is that we still talk about AI as if capability were the main variable, but it is not. The growing leverage point is the architecture of decision making around those capabilities. Systems don’t become fairer or wiser just because they become smarter. Without structural guardrails, acceleration only amplifies whatever logic is already in place. The question is not what AI can do, but what design assumptions we are silently scaling.

Pascal, this reframe cuts right to it. In enterprise GTM and CS contexts, I see this tension daily — AI investments get decided at the exec layer, while the frontline teams who'd benefit most (SDRs, CSMs, RevOps analysts) often have the least say in what gets built for them. The 'who decides' question isn't just macro-political — it plays out inside every company rolling out AI automation right now. The teams that get this right are deliberate about involving practitioners in the design, not just the deployment.

the deeper issue may not be whether AI reflects human values. it may be whether we have built operational systems where nobody can clearly explain who holds decision authority once execution begins. alignment alone does not resolve that. because aligned systems can still drift operationally if escalation boundaries, admissible conditions and authority transitions were never explicitly defined in the first place. that becomes increasingly important as AI moves from tools people use... to infrastructure people depend on. especially in environments where decisions carry financial, legal, medical or societal consequence. the real challenge may not be creating intelligence that appears human. it may be preserving legitimate human authority once intelligence becomes embedded into execution itself.

Funny how every AI discussion starts with “Will it replace humans?” while the quieter question in the background is “Who owns the machine and who keeps the value?” 😄 What may be getting decided right now, without most people noticing, is not only how we work - but who gets leverage in the future economy. Technology changes fast, but ownership structures and incentives often decide where the benefits actually end up.

Aaron H Indeed it does not sure what you mean by the “handful of people” : the “Call to Rome : AI ethics” united almost all the faith and Philosopies in the world 🌍 In 2024 on the 80th Anniversary of the Atomic bomb?

Strong point. The real AI conversation is no longer about capability it’s about governance, incentives, and who captures the value.

This is exactly the leadership question we need to ask more often. AI capability alone does not guarantee better outcomes unless governance, incentives, and value distribution are designed with intention. The real risk is not only what AI can scale, but whether we are scaling systems that serve people broadly and responsibly. Pascal BORNET

Faster systems need wiser leaders. Not just smarter ones. Because "who decides what gets built" is a values question. And you can't answer a values question with a strategy framework. The leaders who will shape AI well aren't just technically informed. They're deeply self-aware - clear on who they are, what they stand for, and the kind of world they're willing to be responsible for building.

SAURABH SINGH Interesting perspective Crazy how fast companies adopted AI without fully thinking about the cost impact.Feels like we’re still figuring out where AI actually adds value vs where humans are still more efficient.

Keryann Granet It is here to stay, but with this technology. Are we leaving a better planet for our children with more freedom, more safety, more opportunity, more stability, better climate, fairer system, etc? Or is it more control, less safety, less opportunities, more disruption, etcUltimately it this simple: Who are the AI companies in service to:a) The shareholders?b) Wellbeing of humanity?The answer is glaringly obvious, and what does people in category A want? A hint: More for themselves, and less for you, me and everyone else.

Matthew Kilkenny, The real issue is why do we accept that Big Tech companies define hardcoded my moral compass and of all of their users worldwide with genAI and on their online platforms inside their AI-models and platforms? #moderation #productivity #creativity #culturalbias #democracymatters

Exactly.AI is not just scaling intelligence — it is scaling power, decisions, and economic control. That is why the real conversation is no longer about what AI can do, but who gets to decide where the value flows.