Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Buillding is good. Building faster is better. Building faster someting nobody want is a waste of time and energy. Doing the same thing again and again is worse. But it is the reality of most of the companies and people.

In my view, the real question is: what has @BernieSanders actually done for humanity, and who does he truly care about besides himself?

Kate St. Michel, this reminded me of a great discussion we had the other day.

Greed, power & ... If I don’t do it, he will So, the fear of losing to the next competitor

Where is AI taking us? That’s the question we should be asking. Not just what AI can do, but what it means for us as humans, businesses, and society. Are we moving toward a future where humans become more efficient, more creative, and more capable? Or are we quietly becoming dependent on systems we no longer fully understand? The real question behind AI is not just about technology. It’s about **purpose, control, and responsibility**. What’s the backup plan if AI changes faster than our ability to adapt? Interested in your thoughts: Are we building AI to serve humanity — or slowly shaping humanity

Since you mentioned the Pope I'll offer a sort of alternative but I've also got something to put on the main thread... it's a unique situation for people to begin to recognize the flaws and true flaws in human nature. But it's a rare sort of leader and I exclude both Bernie and the pope who can lead us through such a thing without manifesting the flaws common to man. (Bernie like Hennry Kissneger realizes the issue, but again few can address that issue without wrecking individual liberty).

The one man I would never trust to square that circle is Bernie. I will however suggest a candidate for debunking the toxic hype surrounding the new technology. This is not Whatley's only series. But the 4th video on this series makes a great (I believe sound) argument.

While I am not a fan or supporter of Bernie Sanders usually, he raises a very valid and important question again. Others have raised similar questions, and I posted something about it a while back. The human factors around AI as a tool are what we all should be concerned about. Who designs it and builds it? Why? What purposes will it serve? Who controls it, and how? What happens when it gets misused? Will perceived benefits really be beneficial? Who monitors the monitors? And so on...

Bernie is a taker, not a maker. Anyone wants power and control? Go MAKE IT!

Daamn! Bernie makes them sound like communi... wait a minute.... 😂😂

Opium-ization of human cognition and concentration of power and wealth into the hand of 4-5 AI giants. Question is can we able to keep the balance?

Concerns like this are why some push against adoption altogether. But it's becoming clear that the technology is here to stay. We're now left with the responsibility of figuring out how to adopt it safely in a way that benefits people broadly, not just a few. We need more AI-centered conversations to unpack these issues and better understand the direction we’re heading in.

Correct

After reading Ayn Rand, more will understand the issues. It is what it is. The change is not comming, it is allready existant. thos who allready have the power now, won't give it up. Question standing, how will wealth or even worse, surviving look like within the next 5 Years.

Strong framing. From a founder’s POV, the AI question is not just capability, it is governance. If the value created by AI is not tied to clear ownership, incentives, and access, faster systems can scale the wrong outcomes just as quickly.

Pascal The real AI debate is becoming less about capability and more about who controls the systems and how the outcomes affect society.

I don’t believe that entrepreneurs like Bezos or Musk are inherently driven by greed or a desire for power only. Rather, the system they operate in is structured in a way that demands continuous growth. If they are not consistently increasing wealth and expanding their influence, they risk becoming irrelevant. This expectation of indefinite growth creates pressure that goes beyond individual intent. Today technology and science can really solve many of the humanities problems but who is eager to invest in such work which has lesser potential of return than something else.

What strikes me is that we still talk about AI as if capability were the main variable, but it is not. The growing leverage point is the architecture of decision making around those capabilities. Systems don’t become fairer or wiser just because they become smarter. Without structural guardrails, acceleration only amplifies whatever logic is already in place. The question is not what AI can do, but what design assumptions we are silently scaling.

Pascal, this reframe cuts right to it. In enterprise GTM and CS contexts, I see this tension daily — AI investments get decided at the exec layer, while the frontline teams who'd benefit most (SDRs, CSMs, RevOps analysts) often have the least say in what gets built for them. The 'who decides' question isn't just macro-political — it plays out inside every company rolling out AI automation right now. The teams that get this right are deliberate about involving practitioners in the design, not just the deployment.

Funny how every AI discussion starts with “Will it replace humans?” while the quieter question in the background is “Who owns the machine and who keeps the value?” 😄 What may be getting decided right now, without most people noticing, is not only how we work - but who gets leverage in the future economy. Technology changes fast, but ownership structures and incentives often decide where the benefits actually end up.