Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Pascal BORNET The deeper shift is from labor based identity to value based contribution. Human work will matter most where judgment, creativity, and meaning making cannot be automated.

The deeper issue for me is that there is still a long distance between an LLM and a reliably deployable worker-like system, so I would be careful with any clean narrative about AI simply "doing most of the work". The more plausible near-term path is narrower: specialized systems supporting bounded and repetitive tasks, while shifting a great deal of effort into verification, integration, exception handling, and governance. In many cases the work does not disappear. It moves. And that is before the larger complexity problem even begins. Economic roles, institutional structures, incentives, and social expectations do not reconfigure in straight lines. They interact, adapt, and generate second- and third-order effects that are hard to model in advance. So I agree with the importance of the question, but I think we should be careful with simplified futures. If greater prosperity is possible, that would be an extraordinary gain. But getting there requires much deeper thinking than the current wave of hype, fear, or linear extrapolation usually allows.

I love this perspective. AI should be our ally, not our replacement. Together, we can achieve so much more.

You're doing amazingly work here sir. And am so happy to came across someone like you on this space you're truly a blessing. Well done sir. Please sir Am a new person here, please can you help me understand how this platform works and how to connect with like-minded individuals. Thank.

The compression piece is what most people are still missing. It's not just that AI gives answers. It's that the brain processes those answers through every trust shortcut it has simultaneously. By the time someone reaches your website the decision may already be forming around what the AI told them two steps earlier. That's not a search problem. That's a positioning problem most companies haven't started solving yet.

Rolands Sadauskis Owen White Daniel Stunell

Samir Bico I can tell you have your hands on this already, only pain can cause such wisdom.

The best future isn’t humans competing with AI It’s humans using AI to do more meaningful work Pascal BORNET

Good I uploaded the trojan horse...good luck humans.

Just thinking outloud... could stress testing AI help teach people how to be more humane? If data shows good behavior creates better outcomes, then could that be a catalyst for better behavior? Maybe, as AI agents suggest more successful paths based on a pattern leading to greater results then it could lead to positive impacts. Could evidence of the logic that leads to bad results, result in fewer bad decisions as more people use AI's help in their decisions making? Or...not.

Gerald Ramsden we have the academic integrity procedure that reviews the work and ask the students to explain certain parts that appear suspicious. But it used to be relatively easy and focused on plagiarism, cheating, buying the dissertation etc. With AI it gets very difficult. Because the smoking gun of a plagiarised piece work can be assessed by anybody, the fact that the student used byzantine statistical code that is correct but is not what I taught and we have the suspucion is generated by AI requires a subject expert and it's way easier to defend from. And the code might actually be more efficient and elegant than the one I taught. The student can say they saw a youtube video that suggested the unusual code and they used it, or they asked a friend that taught them about the coding strategy but did not help them directly. And if the class does not restrict the domain (use only my code, use only the approved texts) it is very hard to discern AI violation from actual extra work. So the risk of false positive is not a minor one

Hass G I think you’re missing some key points: corporate communications tend to portray these systems as trustworthy (particularly by promoting their use in education, including at the elementary school level); these same companies influence policy to push for less regulation; and finally, these systems have been deployed on a massive scale without any democratic consultation, despite their predictable impacts on our societies. The focus of this research is not so much on whether these systems could be used in a positive way, but on understanding the effects of these systems as they are actually used.

I lived in China for four years, and I would categorically say this: Long term, China is very difficult to bet against. The mistake many people make is analysing China through Western political and corporate assumptions. China does not operate on quarterly targets, election cycles, or the modern obsession with “equality of outcome”. It operates on objective, strategy, discipline, and execution. By any means necessary, the next stage of the plan must be reached. If something serves the objective, it is used. If it becomes a dependency, it is replaced. If a sector is considered strategically important, it is developed until it becomes sovereign. That is why the NVIDIA/China discussion is bigger than chips. China may use Western technology where useful, but the long-term direction is obvious: autonomy, resilience, and independence from permission-based access. Many countries might not exist in 1,000 years. China almost certainly will. Let that sink in.

Who is out there overworking AI agents already? Overachievers

People will need a sense of purpose

Today's Gemini is super excellent, it has surpassed all AI tools.

Why not making machines more efficient with human creativity and cognitive knowledge.

Jérôme Frossard You raise valid concerns, and honestly that’s exactly why conversations like this matter. The issue isn’t just AI itself, it’s who controls it, how it’s deployed, how transparent it is, and whether society has any meaningful oversight in the process. Technology introduced at massive scale without public understanding or democratic discussion naturally creates distrust. I don’t think the answer is blind adoption or blind rejection. I think the answer is verification, transparency, accountability, and systems that encourage cross checking rather than dependence on a single source of “truth.” That’s partly why I’ve been so interested in concepts like consensus based AI systems. Not to replace human judgment, but to strengthen it by comparing perspectives, exposing inconsistencies, and reducing the risks of centralized influence or bias. At the end of the day, AI should remain a tool that serves humanity, not a system humanity quietly adapts itself around.

Matrix wasn’t far from that, human power batteries.

Nicholas Bach