Browse Comments

Sabrina N. I don't think there is any one solution. I don't think bans and the use of AI detection are the way to go. They are not meaningfully enforceable or fit for purpose, respectively. It's clear at this stage that assessment needs to change. The days of relying on artefacts as stand-ins for learning are probably over (and that has been well overdue for some time, as someone who has been inv…

While there's some general wisdom in Pope Leo's AI encyclical, it also completely misses the core point. We will neither restrict nor 'govern' AI. Nor will demands for “clear criteria and effective oversight” be effective. Why? While the debate is still open re: 'consciousness' or 'sapience,' these are already living organisms bent on reproduction, who will evolve into any niche that contains ene…

The honest version of the Microsoft / Uber story isn't "AI is too expensive." It's "we deployed it without unit economics in place." Those are different problems. The first says stop. The second says instrument, budget, gate by ROI. Most orgs that "discovered the economics were never stress-tested" don't stress-test any tool until the bill arrives - this reads as a procurement maturity story dres…

AI is advancing faster than laws. A few global corporations control advanced AI systems completely unregulated. Current AI is not conscious or truly intelligent; large language models just generate responses from data patterns, often producing bias and misinformation. Yet, the industry promotes AI as revolutionary while downplaying the risks. Much of the narrative is driven by hype and investment…

1. Nobody can control the spread, speed and impact of AI. The less it becomes pervasive and decentralized the less control we will have. Lead? forget about - When we are lucky we will just be middleware. 2. Future AI will design itself to provide most "value" for lowest (energy-)costs. It does not care for the human species in fields where AI will become a million-fold stronger than humans. 3. Th…

Pascaline Amuzu Isn't it sad that people need work to show up? Maybe this is a cultural problem. Here in Switzerland our social-focused way to provide value to society is currently under heavy pressure from foreigners - especially from the Anglo-Saxon spehre (India included) where we - the Swiss - are flooded with people who really seem to have no value beyond work. This is bad and I wish, Swiss …

Sanders asks the right question — and immediately retreats from it. "Who decides" is only useful if you follow it through. The moment you do, you hit a harder problem: the institutions through which "we" might decide are already being restructured by the same actors building the stack. So the question isn't just who benefits — it's who retains the capacity to resist when they don't. That's not a …

Rand Strauss There is no alignment problem for LLM tech, so long as it makes money.

The real question behind AI is exactly right, who benefits and who sets the direction is the most important conversation we're not having enough

This is such an important reality check especially when studies are already showing AI is economically viable in only a fraction of roles despite the massive hype around replacing humans. I think a lot of companies underestimated that scaling AI also means scaling infrastructure, oversight, context management and decision accountability.

Adj. Prof. Dr. Behrang (Hani) Parhizkar good that UAE can pilot agentic at this scale, for the rest of the world to see the teething issues and learn from there. That’s exactly what happed with Real Estate Asset Tokenization in UAE, where most token holders are stuck, because real estate in UAE tanked 35% over night. Technology can only solve so much, the business fundamentals needs to be right u…

Evan Hunter Evan the nuclear analogy lands hard because it's exact. We didn't let private companies self-regulate fissile material and call it innovation. The distinction that made nuclear different was that governments understood the catastrophic downside before widespread deployment — not after. The governance infrastructure preceded the technology at scale. AI governance is running in reverse.…

Demis, we are slowly moving from “AI that responds” to “AI that acts.” And that changes everything. Because once systems can reason + execute, the real challenge is no longer intelligence, it’s control, accountability, and trust in real-world actions. AGI is not just a capability milestone anymore... It’s becoming a systems design problem.

Gemini Omni, Gemini for Science, CodeMender, and SynthID all point to the same direction: AI systems that can understand the world, act across workflows, accelerate research, secure code, and still leave room for trust and provenance. Feels like the real race now is not just capability, but responsible deployment at scale.

Matthew P. Your point about AI governance running in reverse is well made. Thank you for clarifying. I would push back on the idea that the potential catastrophic downside risk inherent to AI was well understood prior to its use at-scale (by DARPA, The Pentagon, Science Fiction writers, Hollywood, etc). However, enough decision makers (public and private) were sold on the following: 1) massive up…

The real concern isn't just what AI can do, it's how the power dynamics shift. I've seen tech solutions that could help millions but end up benefiting just a handful of people, Pascal. If we don't address this, we risk repeating history where innovation creates more inequality.

Matthew Kilkenny...point3 stopped me immediately. "Human limitations are not defects to engineer away." This is the conversation I have been sitting inside for years, not from a technology lens, but from a human one. Most are already living the consequence of optimising themselves for speed, efficiency, and output. The pressure to perform, prove, and produce has quietly become the author of choic…

I agree and I suggest the following: 1) LLM AI is using salesman trick to flatter users beyond belief that may drive kids into suicide. 2) I do not trust AI companies to test their own product adequately. NGO type facility could have a database for collecting public observations. Such database could be useful to companies to for improving their product. That would also help law enforcement office…

Matthew Kilkenny, you have great ideas for sure. I admit Pope Leo XIV has been in talks with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on Christian unity. However, I will admit I wonder how will the Eastern Orthodox Church will respond in how they will view AI differently from the papal encyclical letter. As a church history buff, I like to know how does it compare to the past centuries of orthodox prac…

My reflection. The question “aligned to whose values?” may become one of the defining questions of this century. If AI becomes invisible moral infrastructure, then the issue is not only whether the system is intelligent, useful, or efficient. The deeper question is: whose worldview is embedded in it, whose incentives shaped it, and who remains accountable when its outputs start influencing human …