Browse Comments — LLM coded

The massage is clear “If you don’t learn and apply AI now, you’ll be out of work soon!”. In Global Transformation, this push is called the Adoption Phase. We are being pushed to adopt and integrate this technology and being praised for it. Without full integration, these companies will never recuperate their investment and cannot implement the Paid version that is the next step of this plan - we already see it. So, what’s the end game? I certainly don’t know, but what I do know is that Elon just received an incomprehensible SpaceX package offer including objectives such as 1M people on Mars. It’s inconceivable, right. Unless... That many people could be forced, coerced, lied into a life there. What we’re living now is only the beginning of this sort of plan as stated in the objectives of one of the most important companies in this space.

All the comments below seem to support Bernie's point - AI being controlled by a handful of people in a "winner takes all" market is not a good thing. What really marvels me us that we've seen this movie before with Internet and experience the consequences on society, norms and values (the human side). We also all know that AI has a 10X disruptive potential ... and the people on LinkedIn are first in line for the short term consequences. Next question is - do we sit and wait or can we use our collective experience to influence the trajectory while we still can.

This is why I love conversations about AI, Pascal BORNET It brings up perspectives we might not have thought of. I feel this is where laws come into play. But then the question becomes: can we trust those who are in the rooms drafting these frameworks to get it right, and to do it with the right intentions?

The structural shift you describe at societal level is already playing out inside individual organizations, and most aren't ready for it. The same question applies: who decides what AI is allowed to decide, and who is accountable when it decides wrong? In most organizations I observe, that question has no answer. Not because nobody cares, but because the decision architecture was never built.The societal debate matters. But the organizational version of this question is already urgent, and I've spent years building the answer.

Very important perspective. The conversation around AI is increasingly shifting from capability to governance, incentives, and accountability. Technology alone does not determine outcomes. The structures, leadership decisions, and operational priorities surrounding that technology ultimately shape who benefits and who gets left behind.

“The issue is not capability. It’s who benefits.” That’s the real AI conversation most people still aren’t having. A lot of what we explore at aimerge.live sits exactly in that intersection between intelligence, power, governance, and human systems.

Thank you for sharing this Pascal BORNET. This is where the control question becomes very real. It is not only about who owns the models or who captures the productivity gains. It is also about who sets the boundaries of what people are allowed to ask, see, verify or challenge. I ran into this today in a very ordinary way. I asked an AI system a legitimate question about a reported crime, and the system treated the question itself as potentially problematic rather than helping me understand it responsibly. Of course safeguards matter. Nobody wants AI systems enabling harm. But if a small number of companies decide, through invisible policy layers, which questions are answerable, which topics are too sensitive, and which information can be surfaced, then AI is not just a productivity tool. It becomes an information control layer. And that is why the question of “who decides?” matters so much.

AI won’t replace leaders. It will expose organizations that lack governance, vision, and the ability to make tough decisions. Technology is accelerating everything true but that’s exactly why leadership matters more than ever today. In regulated industries, trust and resilience are becoming strategic advantages

The most important AI question was never just capability.It was always governance, incentives, and who holds the power to shape the system. Technology scales fast.But without human-centred leadership, ethics, and accountability, inequality can scale just as quickly. That’s why the future of AI is not only a technical conversation.It’s a leadership one.

With new technology there will be good and not so good outcomes. Take for example Ms Excel, when it was introduced, many book keepers lost their jobs. Eventually other persons embraced the new technology and became proficient in the use of it and overtime those who got onboard with the new technology were able to obtain new roles in organizations and were able to increase their productivity. With AI, we need to embraced it for what it is and use it to enhance the way we work and innovate. Let us see how much of the positive we can derive from the use of AI and control/manage the negative that it will also bring.

Exactly! Also like the Pope writes in his Enzyklika: it’s about humanity and AI. We have to ensure that ethics and not money is the driver of the use and development of AI.🤖❤️

Sanders asks the right question — and immediately retreats from it. "Who decides" is only useful if you follow it through. The moment you do, you hit a harder problem: the institutions through which "we" might decide are already being restructured by the same actors building the stack. So the question isn't just who benefits — it's who retains the capacity to resist when they don't. That's not a distribution problem. It's a subjecthood problem. And social-democratic toolkits — redistribution, regulation, fairer outcomes — were designed for a world where power relations were stable enough to be taken as given. That world is ending faster than the toolkit is adapting. The real question being decided right now, without most people noticing: not what AI can do, but which actors will permanently lose the structural capacity to push back. Once that's gone, the conversation about "fairer outcomes" becomes academic.

The real question behind AI is exactly right, who benefits and who sets the direction is the most important conversation we're not having enough

The real concern isn't just what AI can do, it's how the power dynamics shift. I've seen tech solutions that could help millions but end up benefiting just a handful of people, Pascal. If we don't address this, we risk repeating history where innovation creates more inequality.

A very valid point to consider while developing the AI governance framework.

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.

Pablo COSTA, C. M. I agree with his view, the richest 1% of the world have more money than the 99% so yes they are after power and more control of what AI does and its not to bring major solutions to life but to grow their businesses, its easy being an anti-capitalist but what solution does he have then to stop the power of the richest having their hands on AI strategy? zero, he is a politician and is himself benefiting from the power AI beings most probably from AI advertising and yes he is using it for more power himself.

There's a version of leadership that's disappearing fast.The kind where your value came from being the person who knew what was happening.You held the information. You ran the meetings. You approved the decisions. AI has made all of that cheap. What it hasn't made cheap is this: Standing in front of a room and saying "I made that call, and I got it wrong." Not with a memo. Not with a process review. With your actual reputation on the line.I call it accountability — but not the checkbox kind.The kind where people know, without asking, that if something goes wrong you'll own it. That reputation is owned experience, this is not a limited resource

I posted about this in the marketing context. You have to be good at your craft to get the right value from AI. Otherwise, you will simply produce output that has been

AI isn’t the threat. The people who own it are. The tech isn’t deciding anything power is. And right now, a tiny group is locking in the rules, the profits, and the control while everyone else argues about hypotheticals.