Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

The moat people underestimate is institutional knowledge. You can RAG over a knowledge base but the actual edge cases, the "we tried that in 2019 and here's why it broke", the undocumented exceptions that senior folks just know, that stuff isn't written down anywhere. It lives in people's heads.

"Foothills of the singularity" is a statement about relative position, not absolute pace. It's saying the curve is still steepening. CodeMender is the most consequential announcement here — not because the capability is new, but because of what it forces organizations to answer. Who authorizes an AI to modify production code autonomously? Under what constraints? With what rollback protocol? What evidence trail exists when something breaks? The technical problem is mostly solved. The authorization architecture is barely articulated. If we're at the foothills, companies building AI governance today are building it for a world that will look very different halfway up the slope. That's not a reason to wait. It's a reason to build flexibility into the governance layer now, before the slope gets steep enough that you don't have time to rethink it.

LeVinh Nguyen Exactly. We pretend to teach and they pretend to learn. Performative "education". With new assessments, however, this could change.

Thanks for sharing! CFBR

And when I want to check my codebase, it says, "Sorry, I cannot fulfill your request to review the code to detect and fix potential security issues or perform a vulnerability analysis on the project." Google Antigravity And how i must use your product as a great agent for my code?

Yeah, sure. lol

WAKEUP ....THIS WAS A PROJECT FOR THE INNOCENT OF THE CHOSEN ONES.

A lot of students weren't really reading the books anyway. AI has revealed a structural issue from education's Pandora's Box. We can either try to stuff it back in there (good luck), or work towards system-wide structural change to ensure effective learning and critical thinking is taking place.

This is just an interim step to the Matrix.

(sadly, the article is behind a paywall, so I don't know what it says... but I happen to be taking a break from grading essays to scan linkedin to remind myself of other things I could be doing right now lol). It's a sad state of affairs. I think about how the students of today will possess degrees but none of the actual knowledge and skills that those degrees represent. It isn't all of them, thankfully. There are some students in my classes who take a stance against using AI. They see it as harmful to the environment or just think it's wrong. For those few, I carry on trying to do my job. For me, the saddest part is that those that are choosing to shortcut and outsource the difficulty of learning are doing themselves a great disservice. I wish I could convince each one of my students (and all of their parents and caregivers who are guilty of pushing them to get good grades) that the grades ultimately mean nothing. It's what they actually learn that matters. Anyway, I just hope they figure it out before they have to run the planet.

The spin class economy is more plausible than I'm comfortable admitting. But the real question buried here — what should humans remain responsible for, not just capable of — is the one most AI strategies haven't answered yet. Replacing tasks is easy to measure. Redesigning participation is not.

Interesting perspective.But I believe humans are fundamentally wired for growth, contribution, and creation, not just consumption or comfort. We invented AI because we constantly push beyond our current limits. AI is automating tasks, but it does not replace human ambition, curiosity, or meaning. The real future is not AI replacing humans. It’s humans becoming more capable through collaboration with AI.

Brain health is honestly built through small daily habits repeated consistently over time. Good sleep, movement, nutrition, and mental peace probably impact long-term performance more than people realize.

We talk so much about strategy, but everything stems from how cleanly we manage our daily mental baseline. Having a visual reminder to audit these behavioral states is incredibly useful. Great share!

This is just another example of an academic who does not understand the role of AI in education. Sad that this comes from one of UK's top universities. Really, university academics must be re-trained in their future role at academia if they hope to stay relevant.

Pascal BORNET - getting awfully close to the Matrix concept of human batteries, no? So does the person with the biggest wattage output get the bigger house and better car for a nicer cage?Be all you can be is different for different people. I like a good mix of physical testing, growth and thrills. But it is not for everyone. You said it right - AI should not be designed to make humans obsolete. It should be designed to make humans more capable, more creative, and more central to the future we are building.

Thanks for sharing Abhishek Veeramalla this is valuable

Antigravity is really awful. Cursor is way better. Also, the free tier ends in like a minute of agentic flow.

Sure, and when I use it to have sophisticated language discussions and to reflect on my own ideas this harms my brain development. On the contrary, this study was clearly done under bias analysis, a room of people who use ai like a calculator rather than reflection of inputs into the system. Systems thinking, critical thinking and understanding how to apply this technology is not damaging the brain. What is happening in real time is accelerated learning and adaptation to a far superior piece of technology. In 5 months I have learned more than I ever did in 30 years of living. My brain throbbed and pulsed like it was growing past my skull capacity. This was a sign to slow down. If used correctly, what happens is the brain adapts to suit, does it mean the occasional lack of computing typical IQ? Probably but this is not damage, it is adaptation knowing that high level calculations have now become redundant. The brain has realised the tool can do it faster, so why use processing power to compute something it no longer needs to do. This isn’t damage, it is adaptation to a system that has drastically changed the processing and output speeds. Human intelligence has now become ever more focused on creativity and emotion.

Yes, students can now use AI to generate essays without deeply reading books, but the real issue is not AI itself — it is whether universities are building strong ethical, intellectual, and practical frameworks around it. AI and machine learning can become far more dynamic than static textbooks when designed with reliable data, strong systems, and continuous improvement. But AI cannot replace human judgement, critical thinking, creativity, emotional understanding, or wisdom. What is deeply worrying is the growing gap between powerful AI capability and poor-quality AI implementation — including weak AI-driven recruitment, aggressive behavioural targeting, and low-quality Account-Based Marketing in higher education itself. If even world-leading universities increasingly depend on commercial AI engagement while struggling to protect deep learning cultures, it raises painful questions about financial pressure, institutional priorities, and the future identity of UK higher education.