Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Saikat Jana, PhD It seems people took this kind of idea (harvesting energy from gym) to another level. :D

You are correct, Pascal BORNET. If AI take all human work, that mean all production will happen using AI and robotics. Then the question will be who will consume these products. Currently most such products have to be consumed by humans. When humans do not have funds the consumption will drop. This is the function of the market economy. Therefore AI and robotics will not push humans from the workforce. They will assist humans to do work and produce goods and services quickly and qualitatively.

The joke lands because the question underneath is real. But there's a harder layer: work gave people not just income but also permission to exist in a structure. Remove work without replacing that structure, and you have abundance plus anomie. The redesign problem is not economic. It's social. Who decides what humans are for when labor stops being the answer? ◇

Strong resemblance with

Black mirror did this check out "fifteen million merits". If they can make AI that will do the 15 million loads of laundry I do every week I would call that a success

If you rely on a machine to think your brain will atrophy

This is highly actionable. Thank you for stripping away the noise and delivering clarity.

Im happy to hear about Synth ID. A cross platform standard for marking AI content feels huge for allowing AI to be a force for good! Something like to mark agentic actions would also be great.

Claude intelligence (cowork) is far better anti gravity.... Anthropic is already won...

Is there a cost benefit analysis? Gullible people are exploited. Another big ponzi scheme!!

The data loop one is the most underrated — most teams ship a thin wrapper around an LLM and call it a moat. Compounding usage > clever prompts, every time 👌

No it didn’t

Bring back the viva.

I think Anthropic and OpenAI in trouble... 😄

That headline is doing work the study never asked for. The MIT “Your Brain on ChatGPT” study put 54 people into three groups: writing with ChatGPT, a search engine, or nothing but their own head. EEG showed the ChatGPT group had the weakest brain connectivity and remembered less. That is not brain damage. That is reduced engagement, the same thing that happens any time you hand the thinking to something else. A calculator never hurt anyone’s arithmetic. Never doing arithmetic does. The tool is not the problem. Outsourcing your judgment to it is, and that has been true since the first kid copied homework on the bus. The real takeaway holds: use AI instead of thinking and you learn less. But “hurts your brain in 10 minutes” was built for a thumbs up, not the truth. Read the study, not the caption.

Google antigravity it was a garbage for real life coding and now is a fast garbage. They passed all trust me bro benchmarks but for real life coding any open source Chinese model is way better.

I appreciate your perspective. To clarify, AI what I meant by navigating the real world is survival of AI does not rely on the ecosystem, events, actions, or laws that define the human experience. AI can compile data to guide real world experiences of machines (surgery, vehicles, weapons, etc.) and humans (voice assistants, GPS, algorithms, etc.); however the AI is built by, trained on, and continually relies on humans in a variety of ways. Humans are not dependent on AI. AI would be nothing without humans. This dynamic could also be described as a matter of originality vs. simulation.

Another reminder that innovation without human dignity eventually becomes extraction. Pope Leo XIV’s insistence on ethics, labor, and moral responsibility puts the conversation exactly where it belongs: not “Can we build it?” but “Who does it serve, and at what human cost?” In an era racing toward automation, that is a necessary voice.

Since this showed up in my feed, I’ll call out its b.s. ... “Turns your laptop into a full AI software company.” — This is what’s wrong with LinkedIn posts! Why do people feel it necessary to put exaggerated nonsense in their posts? In our new world of AI, LinkedIn should do a better job of preventing posts that spread non-factual misinformation like this garbage. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting misinformation for the sake of hype. Truly a disgusting tactic, and says a lot about the type of person you are.

Let's take a look at an interesting real example: & [Don’t let your students use AI as a ghostwriter]