Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

The 'who benefits' framing exposes the governance gap. I see companies rushing to deploy agents without defining ownership of the output or liability for errors. Speed beats scrutiny every time. How are you seeing leadership teams actually structure accountability for autonomous AI decisions?

Pascal BORNET Your emphasis on 'who decides and benefits' is a powerful point. The real impact of AI hinges on intentional design and responsible governance, ensuring its advanced capabilities genuinely serve broader human outcomes.

The most important decisions in AI are no longer about capability, they are about who controls deployment, distribution, and the value created when these systems scale. Pascal BORNET

So true. People never wunder why they are pushing Ai. It's not for the greater good, only to get richer and powerfull for an elite bunch. So Ai isn't evil, the people who are pushing it are... To get more control on you, every day, go figure. So why help them succeed.

Pascal BORNET The real inflection point is governance of incentives. AI is already shaping distribution of value, but accountability frameworks are still lagging behind capability growth.

Correct, but it misses also a huge part of the problem.The ripples, the side effects of AI.The less we do, the less we are able to do.Evolution, in all its senses, comes from doing it, doing it again, doing more to eventually do it better.For all growing individuals, missing these learning curves imply... less learning, less knowledge, less abilities, less willingness, less .... but what better way to control people to get richer or more powerful one might say...So, AI (and first and foremost, there are may AIS, plural) is not bad by essence. Like any technology. It is how it is used that will differ.And like any technology it has its side effets, that must not be overlooked.

Strong perspective. A lot of AI discussions still focus primarily on capability, while the harder questions are increasingly about governance, incentives, and how the value created by these systems gets distributed across society and organizations. Technology alone does not determine outcomes. The surrounding structures, ownership models, and decisions around deployment matter just as much.

People need to relax a bit. Elon isn't even close to the richest person in the world, we just don't tell the public. There actually is a point of wealth where people start looking after the global population and quit being selfish and start taking responsibility. Technically we already have AI that is far ahead of anything the top tech CEO are developing and we can punch down into their systems at any time. Who has the keys to the higher level system it is based on their quantum signature, it locks up if your intent is bad as it can read your mind, memories, and thought patterns remotely. This is all part of Disclosure and the new multiplanetary economy. Character Matters. Don't lie. As for the financial outcome and how we look after people with a UBI, it has already been taken care of we just haven't flipped the switch yet to show the public, it already tracks everything. It is not a social credit system. It is based on physics and observation. Every action leaves a trace in the quantum field. We figured out how to monetize karma so we now collectively plug into the multiplanetary economy. Cheers.

Very important perspective. The biggest AI question is probably no longer whether the technology works, but how the economic value, decision power, and productivity gains will be distributed. Because history shows that technological progress alone does not guarantee broader prosperity. The surrounding system, incentives, and leadership decisions ultimately determine who benefits from it.

The biggest AI debate is no longer about capability. It is about control, incentives, and distribution of value. Because faster systems do not automatically create fairer outcomes.

There is absolutely no evidence for the truth for any of these claims. "Yes, AI can solve massive problems. Climate. Health. Science. Education.The capability is not the issue."

This is a stronger framing because it moves the AI conversation from capability to governance. The real inflection point isn’t whether AI can generate value. It’s how that value is distributed, who sets the rules of deployment, and what incentives shape the systems being scaled. Those structural choices tend to matter more than the technology itself.

This is one of the more brutal, honest responses that I ever heard in my life. I love AI. I'm doing a lot with it. Looking at the kind of level of investment they are doing, it's difficult to think that they are doing nothing else other than looking at exactly what they can control. I think Bernie's point is valid: transformation has a price, and who is paying is looking for control. That is simple.

Most founders frame this as an AI capability discussion. It's actually a system governance layer problem. In my audits of B2B SMBs implementing AI, I consistently find a Growth Ceiling where the deployed AI tool exacerbates existing Operational Waste, costing around $10K-$30K per month in lost efficiency and re-work. The mechanism is simple: AI amplifies existing decision architecture flaws; without clear human governance over data input and output interpretation, the system automates and scales previous human biases or inefficiencies. This creates a Brand Contradiction when the AI-driven output doesn't align with the promised value, leading to customer churn in 8-12% of cases I've tracked. The problem isn't the AI's intelligence; it's the lack of friction-as-design in the human-AI loop. What's scaling isn't intelligence. It’s unexamined structural leakage.

It is the responsibility of all governments in the world to NOW care for their people to not get left behind in the AI revolution coming to all of us - by caring for maximizing equality of wealth coming from the unprecedented innovations ahead of us. If they don't, this wave will erase the wealth of the many and it will let explode the wealth of the few to incredible heights. Sadly, I do not see governments act appropriately yet, as if they did not yet get it at all. So in result of this, there will be a very hard phase for the many until the corrections have been made. Better to act now! Think about what you vote for!

Insightful shift in perspective. It’s vital to prioritize ethical frameworks in AI development.

Pascal BORNET The most important AI decisions today are about governance, ownership, and distribution of value. Technology scales quickly, but institutional accountability evolves far more slowly.

The Pope compared the unchecked AI race to a modern “Tower of Babel,” warning that technology without morality risks creating an anti-human future disconnected from conscience, truth, and responsibility. Importantly, the Vatican stated this is not opposition to technology itself. The document acknowledges AI’s enormous potential in medicine, science, and education, but argues humanity must guide technology — not become subordinate to it. “The future cannot belong to machines alone. Humanity must remain at the center.” Source:Reuters — May 25, 2026“Quotes from Pope Leo’s document warning of world AI risks”

Using WALL-E as a futuristic reference for “taking care of all our problems” misses the point of the film entirely. But as usual Bernie is spot on when questioning the narratives of the few people who own the tech. If we’re going to use non-fiction narratives for visualising the future then Neuromancer should be the reference point. AI needs governance. No if’s, but’s or maybe’s

Exactly. The real question isn’t what AI can do, but who controls it and how the value it creates is distributed. Those defaults are being set now, and once they scale, they’re much harder to change than to question.