Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Bernie Sanders' framing—capability exists, but distribution and control are the issues—is partially correct but incomplete. The deeper risk isn't just "a few hands" capturing value (though that happens). It's misalignment at scale: whoever controls the steering wheel will shape what problems get prioritized, what values get embedded, and what trade-offs are made. History shows concentrated control often leads to capture—whether by governments, monopolistic corporations, or ideological cliques.

EXACTLY MY LINES, I HAVE BEEN POSTING that here without any camoflage, I have the BAD HABIT of "Calling the spade a spade". Forget the #Ais. Take a gun, IS IT BAD for humanity?NO NO and NO. It all depends on WHO IS HOLDING IT AND **** USING FOR THEIR PURPOSE. I repeat the two Phrases I have created: #Ai #PEDDLING #Ai #ADDICTION It is in the VESTED INTERESTS OF all the TOP people to "drug" the population with this CONVENIENT TOOL OF #Ai -- FIRST FREE USE, then ??? --- Like they were doing to the common Chinese people supplying them with cheap Opium (at first) and followed by Jacking up the price. I clearly see the DANGER OF #Ai ➡➡ the modern "OPIUM'

True, true... Whether AI helps or hurts depends far less on the model and far more on who captures the surplus it creates. A tool that doubles output is great news for whoever owns the contract and neutral-to-bad for everyone whose pay was tied to hours. It gets decided in boardrooms long before it shows up in the economy.

I like how you highlight that “who decides what gets built” matters more than just what AI can do. I’m curious how we ensure everyday people actually have a say, not just tech giants or policymakers.

Strong point. The real AI conversation is no longer about capability it’s about governance, incentives, and who captures the value.

This is exactly the leadership question we need to ask more often. AI capability alone does not guarantee better outcomes unless governance, incentives, and value distribution are designed with intention. The real risk is not only what AI can scale, but whether we are scaling systems that serve people broadly and responsibly. Pascal BORNET

Faster systems need wiser leaders. Not just smarter ones. Because "who decides what gets built" is a values question. And you can't answer a values question with a strategy framework. The leaders who will shape AI well aren't just technically informed. They're deeply self-aware - clear on who they are, what they stand for, and the kind of world they're willing to be responsible for building.

Keryann Granet It is here to stay, but with this technology. Are we leaving a better planet for our children with more freedom, more safety, more opportunity, more stability, better climate, fairer system, etc? Or is it more control, less safety, less opportunities, more disruption, etcUltimately it this simple: Who are the AI companies in service to:a) The shareholders?b) Wellbeing of humanity?The answer is glaringly obvious, and what does people in category A want? A hint: More for themselves, and less for you, me and everyone else.

It is always, and always will be a human nature issue. How can it be anything else. Some people just do not know when enough is enough and no matter what they have, it's still not enough. Always chasing --> never arriving.Ultimately it this simple: Who are the AI companies in service to:a) The shareholders?b) Wellbeing of humanity?A hint: In one of the answers there are a small group of people who desire nothing else than more for themselves, and less for you, me and everyone else.

I see the "who wins" argument behind it, but since the solution is not to ban the use of AI, then understanding the strings behind and the fuel that move it this revolutionis a good first step: energy, data, computing power, knowledge... since OWNING our data and our digital twins, will enable every single person to gain part of that power back.

Architects also have a role here that often gets skipped. Every governance decision we make at the platform layer quietly answers the question of who benefits. Default model choice, who owns the data plane, where logs live, who can call which tool. These are not neutral defaults. They are policy. If we keep treating them as engineering trivia, the structural outcomes you describe become a side effect of pull requests nobody reviewed carefully.

Exactly.AI is not just scaling intelligence — it is scaling power, decisions, and economic control. That is why the real conversation is no longer about what AI can do, but who gets to decide where the value flows.

Greg Manto Fair point, the pipeline connects. If the big players only build enterprise tools, the baker never sees somethinhg worth adopting. But waiting for that system to fix itself is a losing game. The baker can't lobby openai. He can learn to use what's on his counter. Both matter. But one of them he can start tomorrow morning before the oven's warm.

Pascal BORNET The real inflection point is governance of AI driven value distribution. Technical progress is outpacing institutional frameworks for accountability, transparency, and equitable benefit allocation.

What a poor view of the future and of the way private economy works... the most important role for public powers will be to make sure competition exists.. the market will do the rest.. the BiG risk is to loose control of AI, because there is a race between democracies and autocracies .. and if democracies loose that race, the world can become hell!!️

Bernie Sanders' point strongly reminds me of the TV series "Continuum" (2012). Not so much for the time travel, but the idea that a world dominated by corporations (owned by one or a few) could emerge not by accident... but simply as a result of economic and technological logic.

The massage is clear “If you don’t learn and apply AI now, you’ll be out of work soon!”. In Global Transformation, this push is called the Adoption Phase. We are being pushed to adopt and integrate this technology and being praised for it. Without full integration, these companies will never recuperate their investment and cannot implement the Paid version that is the next step of this plan - we already see it. So, what’s the end game? I certainly don’t know, but what I do know is that Elon just received an incomprehensible SpaceX package offer including objectives such as 1M people on Mars. It’s inconceivable, right. Unless... That many people could be forced, coerced, lied into a life there. What we’re living now is only the beginning of this sort of plan as stated in the objectives of one of the most important companies in this space.

All the comments below seem to support Bernie's point - AI being controlled by a handful of people in a "winner takes all" market is not a good thing. What really marvels me us that we've seen this movie before with Internet and experience the consequences on society, norms and values (the human side). We also all know that AI has a 10X disruptive potential ... and the people on LinkedIn are first in line for the short term consequences. Next question is - do we sit and wait or can we use our collective experience to influence the trajectory while we still can.

This is why I love conversations about AI, Pascal BORNET It brings up perspectives we might not have thought of. I feel this is where laws come into play. But then the question becomes: can we trust those who are in the rooms drafting these frameworks to get it right, and to do it with the right intentions?

Pascal BORNET Most people still frame AI as a technology conversation when it is increasingly becoming a power and distribution conversation. The infrastructure gets built quietly, then the incentives shape everything after.