Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

This is a repeating pattern in the history of humanity. The powerful does not care about the fate of weaker. It is here to impose its ideas and its way of life. What can we as citizens can do is the question?

Pascal BORNET ... But it will. They are driven by a single goal while the mass majority remains divided by countless, petty concerns they do not matter in the grand scheme. The time for talking has long since passed. The only conversation worth having now is one for a plan of action that unifies the masses against the minority, standing between humanity and natural resources to create the illusional of power through their ownership, protected by laws that we obey and they do not.

Pascal BORNET The most important AI decisions today are about governance, ownership, and distribution of value. Technology scales quickly, but institutional accountability evolves far more slowly.

The Pope compared the unchecked AI race to a modern “Tower of Babel,” warning that technology without morality risks creating an anti-human future disconnected from conscience, truth, and responsibility. Importantly, the Vatican stated this is not opposition to technology itself. The document acknowledges AI’s enormous potential in medicine, science, and education, but argues humanity must guide technology — not become subordinate to it. “The future cannot belong to machines alone. Humanity must remain at the center.” Source:Reuters — May 25, 2026“Quotes from Pope Leo’s document warning of world AI risks”

The "must be able to code" requirement often signals that the hiring manager is not fully clear on what a PM is actually supposed to do. Technical credibility with an engineering team comes from asking sharp questions, understanding trade-offs, respecting complexity, and making decisions with clear reasoning, not from being able to write the code yourself. The risk you flag at the end is the real one: a PM who gravitates toward the technical layer because it feels concrete and measurable will naturally drift away from customers, market signals, and the messy human problems that actually determine whether a product succeeds or fails. The best PMs are not the most technical people in the room, they are the ones who can translate between customer reality and engineering constraints without losing either side in the process.

Good point. Many AI discussions still focus on capability while ignoring the concentration of power, decision-making, and economic leverage.

Using WALL-E as a futuristic reference for “taking care of all our problems” misses the point of the film entirely. But as usual Bernie is spot on when questioning the narratives of the few people who own the tech. If we’re going to use non-fiction narratives for visualising the future then Neuromancer should be the reference point. AI needs governance. No if’s, but’s or maybe’s

The question that matters most isn’t what AI can do. It’s what existing incentives, power structures, and institutional habits will it amplify once deployed at scale. That’s the part many AI debates miss: capability is only one layer. The deeper issue is whether we’re building systems that distribute agency, judgment, and benefit; or simply make existing concentration faster and harder to see. I wrote more about why the public AI debate is aimed at the wrong layer here, if interested: https://billcrichmond.medium.com/the-wrong-ai-battle-1d027e709903

Bernie Sanders is making sense. Suspicious. Is this AI generated?

Historically, technology becomes cheaper and more accessible over time. While the underlying models are built by tech giants, the application layer is heavily decentralized. The base layer may be exclusive, but the innovation built on top of it is open to everyone.

Exactly. The real question isn’t what AI can do, but who controls it and how the value it creates is distributed. Those defaults are being set now, and once they scale, they’re much harder to change than to question.

I had a scary dream a few nights ago, it might have been a warning dream of the future to come. My mother passed away last year, and she was into her tech. The whole AI thing came after she left, so I never got her opinion of it. In my dream I got a Google popup add with an older female actor, that looked strikingly like my mother when she was younger. In the dream, I investigated the product further and found more and more angles of this actor resembling my mother. Then there was a realisation, a flash of understanding that Google had used the images of my mother to produce an advert to target the ad to me. And that Google could use the images of any deceased person to produce targeted content for those of us still alive. Imagine a parent who lost a child, seeing an advert for a product that resembles their lost loved one? Maybe it's not an exact replication, just enough to get you to notice. AI has the power to pull on our hearts in ways our brains will never warn us about. That's the power these guys are referring to.

I’m not sure Bernie understands the concept of voluntary exchange and consumer surplus. Business leaders innovate to add value. Nobody forces someone to make a purchase. And people would be willing to - in many cases - pay much more than what the market charges based on the value the good or service provides to the buyer. What was the incentive for people to make his glasses? Did they really want Bernie to see better? Or were they just after his money? Bernie chose to buy them because he saw the value they provided. Enabling him to see. Unfortunately, they didn’t allow him to see clearly how the market adds value and voluntary exchange rewards those who produce the most value. Full stop.

Quite obviously we need to get this under control. The accumulated wealth and power are already going to just a handful of people. And that may not be the biggest problem. Planetary-scale threats require planetary-scale solutions. Einstein made this clear regarding the threat of nuclear war. Hawking issued the same warning targeting exactly this issue: March 8, 2017 The Independent headline “Without a ‘world government’ technology will destroy us,” says Stephen Hawking We need effective planetary-scale governance to address this imminent threat. The good news is, if we do this right, we can also address the climate crisis, nuclear weapons, etc. essentially any global threat that cannot be addressed by individual nation-states. Join the movement at occupyearth.org

Roger That!!

"Who decides what gets built. And who benefits when it works." AI is not suddenly introducing this question. This has always been the question to answer. AI I simply revealing and amplifying the importance of it.

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.

AI for ALL, it is there when you really use it

This is the part that gets missed. AI doesn’t just scale productivity, it scales whatever judgment, incentives, and operating system already sit underneath it. If the structure is short-term, extractive, or poorly governed, AI makes that faster too.

Strangely I do think Musk thinks along these reasons.