Browse Comments

Dan Martell This is very underrated advice for AI tools almost nobody talks about (from what I’ve seen). Most people spend their time prompting “test” examples and wonder why they never trust the output when it matters. Real stakes force you to actually learn the tool, how to correct it, how to direct it, how to build the feedback loop that makes it useful.

Very clear and practical framing. What I like about this analogy is that it separates capability, grounding, action, and connectivity in a way that makes the stack much easier to reason about. In enterprise AI, the real value only appears when all four layers work together: an LLM without grounding can drift, an agent without guardrails can misfire, and MCP is what makes the whole system actually…

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

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 …

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.

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 ha…

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 i…

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?

The danger is not that AI suddenly becomes anti-human. The danger is colder than that: institutions may use AI to make human needs machine-legible, then mistake that legibility for truth. Safety becomes risk scoring. Belonging becomes engagement management. Esteem becomes reputation analytics. Judgment becomes workflow compliance. Purpose becomes another managed service. That is when AI stops bei…

Luís Rodrigues This is a universally relatable breakdown, Luís. My governance mind immediately looks at this anatomy and sees exactly how we protect the health of the system: The Brain (LLM): Needs high-quality nutrients to think clearly. The Library (RAG): Provides the factually accurate books it needs to read. The Hands (Agents): Execute and build with true intention and purpose. The Nervous Sy…

AI does not need to become evil to become dangerous. It only needs to become more logical than us while remaining emotionally empty. At that point, human guidance may look less like authority and more like noise. The future of alignment may depend on whether we can give intelligence emotional and perceptual grounding before logic outgrows obedience

I’ve sat in alignment meetings where an engineering team flagged a subtle vector bias in a model pipeline, only to be told by product marketing that delaying the rollout would cost us our quarterly enterprise contracts. That is the exact corporate bias Chris Olah is warning us about in the Reuters brief. You cannot let the entities chasing a multi-trillion-dollar commercial window be the sole aud…

Hey Ruben Hassid - last week Claude hallucinated data when I asked it to analyze call recording. My settings specifically told it never to make up information. Apparently, it couldn’t read files in my Google Drive. How can I fix this?

The danger is that this will create a small club of people who “know what’s best for us so we should just listen to them” and this club would include Anthropic, the Vatican, and a few other entities selected by them. But their power would be limited because western companies and religious leaders can only influence AI development in the West. They have no influence over what China, India or the M…

Most organizations are still experimenting with AI assistants. The UAE appears to be experimenting with AI operators. That's a much bigger leap because execution changes everything: governance, accountability, permissions, and oversight all become critical infrastructure.

Keith King, I have encountered this critical issue with AI Labs and was led to put the bot back in its own place and not perform as the god of technology. It was a little irritating when the bot referred to itself as the "I AM" in it's closing response. I also closed my prompt with the name IAM and reminded the bot to be respectful as I have been with you. I also stated that I wanted the bot to r…

The implications of this are far bigger than most people realize. If this works at scale, the UAE is not just digitizing government. It is redesigning the speed of the state itself. That changes everything: • business formation • compliance • licensing • investment velocity • policy execution • even where global talent chooses to build But the real question is not whether AI can automate workflow…

I use AI to create investment strategies. It helps me with all my due diligence. I ask it all kinds of questions: bull, fair-value, bear scenarios. Ask it to play devil's advocate on my and its own valuations based on catalysts, whether they are real or hypothetical. It completely eliminates the need for costly human financial consultants, who will only try and sell you financial products on whic…

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?