Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Only half the picture. "who decides" sounds good in town hall but try asking a baker in Smallville. He's elbow deep in dough at 5am, phone buzzing with a Amazon order he still copies into Excel by hand. Nobody invited him to the table. He didn't lose out because of some boardroom power grab. He lost out because the tool landed in his inbox, he clicked around for 20 minutes, got frustrated, and closed the tab. That's an adoption problem. A guy with flour on his hands and no one showing him which button to press.

Pascal BORNET The real inflection point is governance of incentives. AI is already shaping distribution of value, but accountability frameworks are still lagging behind capability growth.

Correct, but it misses also a huge part of the problem.The ripples, the side effects of AI.The less we do, the less we are able to do.Evolution, in all its senses, comes from doing it, doing it again, doing more to eventually do it better.For all growing individuals, missing these learning curves imply... less learning, less knowledge, less abilities, less willingness, less .... but what better way to control people to get richer or more powerful one might say...So, AI (and first and foremost, there are may AIS, plural) is not bad by essence. Like any technology. It is how it is used that will differ.And like any technology it has its side effets, that must not be overlooked.

The practical part for businesses is less about what AI can do and more about who sets the rules for using it. If the controls sit with a small group, the benefits will follow that pattern too.

This is so so true but it also misses a huge part of the problem. What about the side effects of AI?

Strong perspective. A lot of AI discussions still focus primarily on capability, while the harder questions are increasingly about governance, incentives, and how the value created by these systems gets distributed across society and organizations. Technology alone does not determine outcomes. The surrounding structures, ownership models, and decisions around deployment matter just as much.

People need to relax a bit. Elon isn't even close to the richest person in the world, we just don't tell the public. There actually is a point of wealth where people start looking after the global population and quit being selfish and start taking responsibility. Technically we already have AI that is far ahead of anything the top tech CEO are developing and we can punch down into their systems at any time. Who has the keys to the higher level system it is based on their quantum signature, it locks up if your intent is bad as it can read your mind, memories, and thought patterns remotely. This is all part of Disclosure and the new multiplanetary economy. Character Matters. Don't lie. As for the financial outcome and how we look after people with a UBI, it has already been taken care of we just haven't flipped the switch yet to show the public, it already tracks everything. It is not a social credit system. It is based on physics and observation. Every action leaves a trace in the quantum field. We figured out how to monetize karma so we now collectively plug into the multiplanetary economy. Cheers.

Very important perspective. The biggest AI question is probably no longer whether the technology works, but how the economic value, decision power, and productivity gains will be distributed. Because history shows that technological progress alone does not guarantee broader prosperity. The surrounding system, incentives, and leadership decisions ultimately determine who benefits from it.

We believe this structural shift is critical for sustainability in the HVAC sector. If we prioritize equitable resource distribution, we can ensure that new climate technologies truly benefit the broader community rather than just a few.

This is the deeper conversation more people need to have. Technology itself is neutral most of the time. The real impact comes from the incentives, ownership, and decisions around it. AI is scaling systems and power structures just as much as it is scaling capability.

... and whether AI will turn all of us into the slobs that we see in Wall-E. I am really afraid that we will degenerate like that.

The biggest AI debate is no longer about capability. It is about control, incentives, and distribution of value. Because faster systems do not automatically create fairer outcomes.

Pascal BORNET The real decision being made is governance of intelligence at scale. Whoever controls deployment layers ultimately shapes distribution of value, opportunity, and systemic influence.

Wow! He nailed it so perfectly. The richest people in the world or spending billions of dollars tocontrol the AI. And why would they not use it to gain more power.

There is absolutely no evidence for the truth for any of these claims. "Yes, AI can solve massive problems. Climate. Health. Science. Education.The capability is not the issue."

The emerging fields and tech was never the problem, the problem is with the people who control them, because the commercial and greed aspects always surpasses the social values. Great post Pascal BORNET

This is a stronger framing because it moves the AI conversation from capability to governance. The real inflection point isn’t whether AI can generate value. It’s how that value is distributed, who sets the rules of deployment, and what incentives shape the systems being scaled. Those structural choices tend to matter more than the technology itself.

This is one of the more brutal, honest responses that I ever heard in my life. I love AI. I'm doing a lot with it. Looking at the kind of level of investment they are doing, it's difficult to think that they are doing nothing else other than looking at exactly what they can control. I think Bernie's point is valid: transformation has a price, and who is paying is looking for control. That is simple.

This really is a whole new ball game. How we choose to navigate it will define the future.

Most founders frame this as an AI capability discussion. It's actually a system governance layer problem. In my audits of B2B SMBs implementing AI, I consistently find a Growth Ceiling where the deployed AI tool exacerbates existing Operational Waste, costing around $10K-$30K per month in lost efficiency and re-work. The mechanism is simple: AI amplifies existing decision architecture flaws; without clear human governance over data input and output interpretation, the system automates and scales previous human biases or inefficiencies. This creates a Brand Contradiction when the AI-driven output doesn't align with the promised value, leading to customer churn in 8-12% of cases I've tracked. The problem isn't the AI's intelligence; it's the lack of friction-as-design in the human-AI loop. What's scaling isn't intelligence. It’s unexamined structural leakage.