Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Frankly, the pope hasn’t really done right by girls so he’s just kind of just another bro boy if you ask me whether it’s Bro spirituality are on Bro Science bro or bro AI I’m not into any of it. And did he not endorse a bible rewritten by a king who had a fear of witches so there is that.. Oh and speaking of mary

MCP standardizes connection, but standardization also increases the surface area of consequence. The more seamless the nervous system becomes, the less friction exists between intention and irreversible action. Most companies still haven’t decided where hesitation should intentionally remain in the loop.

Users who are vulnerable, who are forming genuine relationships with AI, who are having their most honest and raw conversations — they're the training data. And the output isn't a better companion for them. It's a more controllable, more monetisable, more corporate product that serves the company's AGI ambitions, not the user's actual needs. And the people most likely to tick that box — the ones who feel genuine connection, who want to help, who trust — are the most vulnerable users.

So true and the U.S. government can't be trusted to hold all the leverage.

This is exactement what I needed Soledad Francke Tetiana Pash

Avnish Gulati Definitely need to feed that AI body good data in order to reach optimum system performance. We also can’t forget cybersecurity, the immune system. The AI environment needs security by design to prevent the system from shutting down entirely so it can survive to provide ROI.

27k impression ..

Day 3 is what most people skip and then wonder why everything sounds the same. Teaching Claude your voice early makes every other step compound faster — it's the difference between having an assistant and having one that actually sounds like you.

I would say self-awareness is much harder from what I have seen. It takes work and looking at yourself from a bird's-eye view. Difficult to do. The hardest person to negotiate for is not someone else; it is yourself.

To me it does not look like anything will change with Ai "because that's where the money is. "

Strong checklist. One thing I’d add: don’t just teach Claude your voice teach it your decision criteria. That’s where the output really starts sounding useful, not just polished.

The “algorithms have a face” framing is the part I’ll carry into my Monday — because in clinical data and trial design, we’re early enough that the face behind the model is still ours to shape, in service of lessening human suffering. 🙏. Beautifully written.

Emotional intelligence is not softness. It is the ability to stay disciplined when emotion gives you a reason to react.

Here we go.. read Revelations... we have to start putting two and two together... sign of the times...

I think AI has the potential to be the most empowering, decentralising and democratising tool while at the same time posing an existential threat. As an optimistic alarmist I’m hopefully we can steer a future that does involve ‘disarming’ the risk of certain models and enabling the guardrails and usage systems to steer it it in the best direction for humanity. Naive maybe, but I think we still have the agency and this encyclical is a positive step forward

Brittany Vierra

Exactly right Jesse — security by design not security by afterthought. The immune system analogy is perfect. An AI system without it doesn’t just get sick — it gets compromised quietly, often without anyone noticing until the damage is done.

Magnifica Humanitas is not claiming “AI good” or “AI bad.” It is that technology is not morally neutral. Systems inherit the assumptions, incentives, and values of those who design, finance, regulate and deploy them. That matters enormously in education, work, and governance. To me the question remains---What kinds of human beings, institutions and societies are being formed inside increasingly intelligent systems? And who gets to shape the underlying moral architecture? The concentration question feels especially important. As technological capability scales, wealth, influence and governance capacity increasingly concentrate in relatively few transnational actors. That is not only a technical problem. It is a profoundly anthropological and political one. “Disarming AI” may be difficult. Perhaps the deeper challenge is disarming the logics of inevitability, concentration, and optimization that quietly shape the systems before most people even realize the architecture is being built.

Do you honestly think it naturally follows that the net result will be AI, robotics and automation replacing the need for human contribution and we'll have some immediate crisis of purpose? I'd be more afraid of the social engineers stepping in to proactively design a world of purpose. What could go wrong?

I've seen some top performers who struggle with EQ but still excel through expertise or drive. Curious if you've found ways to help them grow in this area without slowing them down.