Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

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.

The question also extends to how the control is done, how much of AI are we implementing in our lives? Who controls that? Healthcare is a field that benefits the most from AI, and we need more people there but does it make more money....

Pascal BORNET part of this awareness that we champion, is understanding that AI is not just a resource. It is a new environment for human cognition. And the implications of a small group controlling a cognitive environment are unknown, at best.

Alexey Volkov 🇺🇦 cuts deeper. Narrow AI as assisting tools CAN have ROI. General AI is science fiction and not safely implementable with the current state of human intelligence. A fools mission, based on hopium.

The uncomfortable question may be even deeper: who is really directing AI right now? We can point to founders, investors, governments and big tech leaders, and they clearly influence the direction through capital, infrastructure, regulation and talent. But as AI systems become more capable, the question is not only whether humans can manipulate AI. It is also whether AI will start shaping human decisions, incentives and institutions in ways we don’t fully understand yet. So yes, ownership and governance matter. But maybe the real debate is not only “who benefits from AI?” It is also: who, or what, will ultimately be steering the system?

Spatial equity remains a critical concern in urban planning today. Algorithmic tools must prioritize inclusive community needs over singular profit motives to ensure architecture serves the public good.

Where is AI taking us? That’s the question we should be asking. Not just what AI can do, but what it means for us as humans, businesses, and society. Are we moving toward a future where humans become more efficient, more creative, and more capable? Or are we quietly becoming dependent on systems we no longer fully understand? The real question behind AI is not just about technology. It’s about **purpose, control, and responsibility**. What’s the backup plan if AI changes faster than our ability to adapt? Interested in your thoughts: Are we building AI to serve humanity — or slowly shaping humanity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Greg Manto Fair point, the pipeline connects. If the big players only build enterprise tools, the baker never sees somethinhg worth adopting. But waiting for that system to fix itself is a losing game. The baker can't lobby openai. He can learn to use what's on his counter. Both matter. But one of them he can start tomorrow morning before the oven's warm.

Pascal BORNET The real inflection point is governance of AI driven value distribution. Technical progress is outpacing institutional frameworks for accountability, transparency, and equitable benefit allocation.

What a poor view of the future and of the way private economy works... the most important role for public powers will be to make sure competition exists.. the market will do the rest.. the BiG risk is to loose control of AI, because there is a race between democracies and autocracies .. and if democracies loose that race, the world can become hell!!️