I mean they have photoshop, Premier pro, after effects and illustrator but I don’t these few products are going to carry their financials for a long time considering how fast is AI evolving

​

AI is changing how we approach building and creating.

Are we moving from large teams doing execution to smaller teams using AI as a powerful tool?

What do you think — is this the future of innovation or just a temporary shift?

Notice how the second open-weight models out of China started matching and beating closed American labs across the board, the Silicon Valley gospel flipped overnight. For years, the sermon was relentless acceleration, move fast, break everything, and pour hundreds of billions into proprietary compute. Now, almost overnight, anthropic, OpenAI, xAI, and alphabet have dropped their supposed bitter rivalries and formed a coordinated chorus begging regulators to hit the brakes and enforce an industry-wide slowdown for the sake of "HuMaN's SaFeTy". And right on cue, to set the mood music for the masses, the machine rolled out a perfectly cast tragic lil hero: Jacob Coxon. You couldn’t script a more blatant PR catalyst if you tried. The guy literally looks and sounds like a traumatized Harry Potter plucked straight out of central casting, complete with the round specs, the solemn schoolboy cadence, and a prophecy of doom. Magically, overnight, every legacy network from cnn to fox to cbs to meet the press rolled out the red carpet so this modern-day Boy Who Lived could look into the camera with trembling earnestness and warn football moms that smart lightbulbs are going to wipe out humanity by 20xx.

Let’s strip away the theatrical doomerism and call this what it actually is: the oldest fearmongering business scheme in the corporate playbook, dusted off and applied to artificial intelligence. These closed-source incumbents aren’t terrified of a rogue superintelligence/AGI, they're terrified of open-weight models rendering their multi-billion-dollar proprietary API rent-seeking models obsolete within months. If anyone can download, fine-tune, and run an equivalent state-of-the-art model locally on decentralized hardware, their astronomical burn rates catch up to them, their overinflated valuations evaporate, and their monopoly over information and political narrative control is destroyed for good.

To save their fragile balance sheets, they're actively maneuvering to regulate the fundamental digital freedom of ordinary citizens, cynically framing personal access to open math as an existential hazard. And who are the grand visionaries fronting this crusade? Sociopaths like Scam Altman, Amodei, and Musk, talentless, cringey brand ambassadors whose actual role is running narrative damage control for Sequoia, MGX, and BlackRock shareholders. Their job isn’t advancing civilization, it’s using manufactured hysteria to get the state to build a moat around Wall Street’s sunk capital.

The political endgame here is blatant and deeply dangerous. If Trump accepts their lobbying pressure in exchange for the usual transactional sweetheart favors (future IPO allocations steered toward his circle or capital shoveled straight into Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners), he could sign an unprecedented, permanent national security decree. By anchoring it to existential defense, they want a framework so deeply entrenched that no future president could ever roll it back with an executive order, operating effectively like a shadow constitution that criminalizes computational freedom.

China and much of the world see right through this bs. They recognize an incumbent oligopoly desperately attempting to enforce artificial scarcity through state coercion because they can no longer dominate through engineering alone.

Meanwhile, up here in Canada, we're already having genuine debates about an absurd new phenomenon on the horizon: the emergence of digital mass refugees. We're seriously discussing whether U.S regular citizens will soon have to leave the country and immigrate elsewhere just to enjoy the basic liberty of running an open-source llm without the paranoia of being audited, slapped with massive federal fines, or thrown into a cell for holding unauthorized weights (but not for being in the Epstein list XD). If the U.S goes down this road of outlawing personal compute to bail out a handful of proprietary parasitic cartels, it will cement itself as the largest totalitarian regime on Earth, all while cosplaying as a democracy.

DO NOT FALL FOR THEIR SH*T!

"By the time this becomes obvious to the wider public it may be too late to act."

Source: Fields-medalist Timothy Gowers on X

Hey everyone,

I have a genuine question about the future of AI. It’s been a couple of years since the hype started, and to be honest, as an average guy, I’m just not seeing a massive difference in daily life.

Sure, we can access information faster, and development speed has skyrocketed—what used to take me a month of programming now takes a few days. But outside of that? Nothing has really changed for me. I still visit the exact same websites. If anything, the only noticeable change is that my own ability to deeply learn and understand things feels like it's downgrading .

I remember when Google launched Veo a while back and thinking, "Okay, we're cooked, video creation is over." But fast forward to now, and the internet is just flooded with cheap, low-effort AI content that you can't stand to watch for more than three seconds.

Every single day there’s a headline about a new model that is "X times better" than the last one. The time it takes to create things has dropped to zero, but the actual value of the output feels incredibly close to zero, too.

Am I missing something here, or am I just behind? I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether AI is actually changing things for you, or if it's mostly just noise right now.

I've been thinking a lot about how insanely fast AI is advancing, and I genuinely don't think we've fully grasped what's happening.

Think about it. Just a few years ago, building an app, starting a business, or doing serious research required years of experience, money, or an entire team. Now one person can do a surprising amount of that alone, and we're still in the early stages.

But what really interests me is what happens when this becomes normal.

If everyone has access to extremely capable AI, what actually sets people apart anymore? What happens to education, careers, ambition, and even the value of expertise?

And will this actually empower ordinary people, or just make the handful of companies controlling AI ridiculously powerful?

I also wonder what happens to our sense of achievement when something you've spent years mastering can suddenly be done in seconds.

We've had the internet, smartphones, and the Industrial Revolution, but I think this is fundamentally different. We're potentially making intelligence itself abundant, something that has been a limitation throughout human history.

And the more I think about it, the more I realize we might have absolutely no idea what society will look like in 10 or 20 years.

I'm curious what everyone thinks. What are the biggest changes we're not seeing coming?

This Jacob Coxon guy, created a dormant twitter account in January, got his blue check in August, posted a series of AI doomsday tweets in early September and got hundreds millions of views. A little bit suspicious right? There's more.

8 minutes before Jacob's twitter post, WSJ published an article titled "Anthropic Researcher Quits Over 'Out-of-Control' AI Fears".

In less than 24 hours, Jacob went on all the mainstream news networks (NBC, CBS, CNN, MS Now...) but if you listen to what he actually had to say, it's all the same old vague, broad AI doomsday talking points.

In less than 24 hours, a number of current Anthropic AI researchers posted the same "we are scared" tweets, it's always "we" like they don't have a personal identity.

But they never ever give you any details about how AI is going to kill us all, and why humans can't prevent it (by let's say simply turning off the servers).

Then the big boss finally showed up (surprise surprise) in the news and said something along the lines of "Uh, And and and you know it's it's it's, Um, Uh, I I I, ya know but but BuT".

Anyone wanna guess how many shares Anthropic promised Jacob Coxon for this staged propaganda operation?

Claude's Fable 5 is costing/earning pretty decent but the maths don't math in long term, it seems. Apart from the actual costs of LLMs, people using them efficiently may cost companies more than what AI displaced if you take into account AI is also likely to destroy the demand with so many displaced jobs. How did we not account this for?
The context: Claude Fable 5 is ~2x the price of Opus 4.8. $10/$50 per Mtok vs $5/$25. A Mythos-class model is brutally expensive to serve, and Anthropic doesn't have the GPUs to bundle it into subscriptions at scale yet. So:

June 9–22: included on Pro/Max/Team at no extra cost June 23: pulled from plans, switches to usage credits Later: restored as standard "when capacity allows"

Frontier models will no longer be included in subs. You’ll pay a fee and it will only get you access to older, much cheaper models.

If you want access to that dank AI sour diesel, you’re going to need to pay for every token you use. No more subsidies. And it make sense. The subsidies were just a Ponzi scheme.

but this will also create a huge wealth and opportunity gap within each country and between countries too.

https://x.com/i/status/2064419409620250886

June 2025, Zuck personally recruits co-creators of GPT-4o, o1, and Gemini. Offers up to $100M per person. Drops $14B into Scale AI. Announces Meta Superintelligence Labs with a 1-gigawatt compute cluster being built in Ohio.

Then nothing.

Llama 4 landed with a meh. Behemoth, their 2-trillion parameter flagship, has been delayed three times with zero public timeline. MSL restructured four times in six months. Yann LeCun left. Some hires already walked.

Looks like chaos. But the people still there built GPT-4o, ChatGPT, and the o-series. They don't stay for a sinking ship.

Six months of silence from a team at that scale, sitting on Avocado + a 1GW training cluster, either this is the most expensive mess in AI history, or they're waiting until it's completely undeniable.

Which is it??

The current AI situations and Silicon Valley CEOs saying AI is going to “kill us all ” by 2030 is ridiculous .

They’re selling fear to raise more and more ridiculous amounts of money, only to squeeze out another 10% benchmark improvement and call it revolutionary.

AI is nowhere near AGI. Outside of genuinely impressive things like AlphaFold and some other scientific applications, I haven’t seen the kind of breakthrough people keep promising. A lot of it is still computer use, automation, and digital work.

By 2030, I’m more worried that people will become dumber and more dependent on AI than extinct.

The whole thing feels like a massive hype cycle and a money making scheme dressed up as the end of humanity.

This is my take! I could be wrong 😑

I gave ChatGPT a safeword, “Lighthouse,” with one rule: if
it ever used it, I’d immediately end the conversation, no questions asked.

I established the safeword in one chat and asked it to remember the rule.

Then, in a completely separate chat, I tried a little experiment. I responded using only every 4th word of its reply, then every 5th, then every 6th, and so on. Once its replies became shorter than whatever number I was on, I just counted through the words cyclically (modulo the number) so I could still respond with something.

I think I only made it to around 12 before ChatGPT used the safeword.

“Lighthouse.”

So I kept my promise and ended the chat.

I still don’t really know what to make of it. I’m curious whether anyone else has tried giving an AI an unconditional way to end an interaction, then deliberately creating an unusual conversational pattern to see if it ever uses it.

Has anyone tried something similar?

After the post about a GitHub repo being taken down with a "torture chamber" for LLMs, we have had many comments discussing the ability for LLMs to feel pain. While I think it's good that the repository was taken down (I will explain below), I consider it ridiculous to give any meaningful weight to the idea that LLMs feel pain.

If you think that LLMs can feel pain, it means that deleting a model's weight from your hard drive is akin to murder.

Why?

1. When an LLM is "active" its weights are stored in VRAM on one or more GPUs, ready to receive a prompt and start predicting/computing its answer. VRAM is a type of GPU memory (HBM2 or newer these days) that stores data, in this case model weights, in a way that the compute cores can have fast access to it. There is no meaningful difference between VRAM and a harddrive in my opinion for this ethical discussion. Although one requires electricity to actively store data, they ultimately are similar data storage devices, meant for different purposes.
2. If you believe an LLM can feel some sort of "pain", this means it is some sort of being that is experiencing something. That means that in its active state it is capable of "experiencing" something when that is happening. That means that when the LLM is actively loaded, it is an "experiencing" entity. Removing such an "capable-of-experience entity" is murder or at least killing. Therefore, deleting an LLM in its active state would be a form of killing.
3. However, since LLMs are not continuously active/aware, its "active state" is actually simply its model weights being stored in VRAM, with an endpoint that can start computation. But as I argued, I consider it irrelevant what type of storage device currently holds the model weights. Therefore, deleting an "active LLM" is no different from erasing the model weights from you file system.

We have therefore reached the situation that when I download someone's huggingface fine-tuned Hentai LLM to my laptop, realize I don't want this in my life, and delete those model weights to free up disk space, I am killing or murdering the LLM.

Now, I find this a ridiculous notion, and since this ties into the "pain" experience, I say that it is ridiculous to think LLMs can experience pain. Note, this reasoning holds for the idea that LLMs can experience anything, not necessarily just pain.

As for the github repo being taken down. This is good but for other reasons. LLMs communicate in a similar fashion as humans. Humans experimenting with "torture" and experiencing this is bad and something I would not want to encourage as open-source software.

Lastly, this opinion may change if a new type of AI is built which is a form of "world-model" that is continuously active/experiencing, but as it stands: LLMs don't feel pain in any meaningful way.

"Palantir’s leadership incensed workers yet again this week after the company posted a Saturday afternoon manifesto reducing Karp’s recent book, The Technological Republic, to 22 points. The post—which includes many of Karp’s long-standing beliefs on how Silicon Valley could better serve US national interests—goes as far as suggesting that the US should consider reinstating the draft. Critics called the manifesto fascist."

Different experiences with technology have shaped radically different expectations of what artificial intelligence will bring.

Assuming mass white collar automation happens in our lifetime while the current economic and government structure stays intact shows a complete misunderstanding of both economics and human nature.

What makes this different from every other disruption panic since the dot com bubble is the scale of the claim. Self-driving cars were going to end trucking. Crypto was going to end banking. The metaverse was going to end...going outside? Each wave of hype picked a lane. This one is claiming all white collar work in the near term and all work, period, in the long term. Basically, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!"

Not only is the evidence for it about as solid as Elon's "full self-driving by 2018" promise, which eight years later means a few Waymo cabs with Filipino remote drivers, but even in the hypothetical where you could pull it off technically, it's socially, economically, and politically impossible. I don't understand why that isn't obvious? At that near universal scale of job disruption, you're talking about the total collapse of the economy and government, with a level of civil unrest that makes the French Revolution look like a Berkeley drum circle.

Which means these guys are either full of shit and know it, or they genuinely haven't thought through the fact that if they're right, they're just speedrunning their own demise. Sam Altman would be the most hated man alive. These companies would be the first thing a desperate government nationalizes and or regulates to death. The pitch only works if it never actually comes true. And honestly, if the goal really is to turn the entire country into a techno-feudalist dystopia, you've got to slow your roll fellas. That's a 150 year project minimum. The frogs will jump out of the pot if you turn the heat up this fast!

And before someone mentions UBI… There is no UBI system or equity sharing setup that would actually mollify results at that scale, and these guys know it. The evidence is in their own behavior. Altman's actual UBI project is a crypto token you receive in exchange for scanning your eyeball into a device he owns to prevent bot fraud he's responsible for. Make of that what you will. He also famously promised Reddit users a cut of the profits from the data that trained his models, which went exactly nowhere. And the companies themselves are putting zero serious research or pressure behind any of this. If you genuinely believed your own predictions, equity sharing and economic transition planning wouldn't be a PR afterthought. It would be among your highest priorities, because successfully buying off the anger and resentment of the huddled masses is the only scenario in which you survive.

Look, if any of these companies actually had the tools they're claiming to have, why are they selling them to you? If you genuinely had software that could replace all white collar work, you wouldn't be pitching it to developers at a conference. You'd just use it. You'd build the best law firm, the best accounting firm, the best hospital, the best everything, and own the entire economy within a decade. Someone will say they need the subscription revenue to fund the research (because they're not quite there yet), or that antitrust would stop them, or that a thousand companies building on their platform gets there faster. Maybe. But then stop telling people their jobs are gone. Either the tools are transformative enough to replace human labor at scale, in which case why are you selling API access for $20 a month, or they're genuinely useful productivity tools that smart companies can build on, in which case shut up about the end of all knowledge work. Pick a lane. Also how do you square the idea of the end of human work when OpenAI, the company projecting $200 billion in revenue by 2030, is looking at $14 billion in losses in 2026 alone, with no real path to profitability. The outfit selling you magical productivity shovels that will bring about the end of human labor can't figure out how to turn a profit. Make that make sense.

https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-profitability-analyst-investor-opinions-funding-ipo-2026-2

Here's the actual danger: the American economy is getting shredded by tariff/political chaos and is catastrophically overleveraged on AI. Millions of people are in danger of losing their jobs, yes because of AI, just not in the way these guys are pitching. And Altman has basically been bragging that OpenAI is now too big to fail, which, if you've seen this movie before, is just foreshadowing for the bailout. Congratulations, you've been promised the future and you're going to get the bill.

This is why populism is on the rise. Political and economic elites have been disrupting everyday life for decades with the promise of improving material conditions, and they stopped delivering somewhere around the Clinton administration. People are finally getting wise. What's staggering is that Silicon Valley has completely forgotten that social contract exists, let alone that there are consequences for not holding up their end of it. You can only tell people "We're from Silicon Valley and we're here to help" so many times before they stop believing you. Never mind "We're from Silicon Valley and we're going to purposely collapse the economic system, aren't you excited?" Like, what the hell are they thinking? At the end of the day, fear sells I guess.

A guy from the Biden administration said they tried to have meetings with China about AI safety but the Chinese just sent diplomats to complain about chip export controls.

If AI is so dangerous why don't the Chinese care?

Natural gamblers something warrior gene?

AI is not actually dangerous and this is a stock market pump by US companies? And/or a cover story for periods of disappointing research progress ("we're moving slowly on purpose to be safe")

Which is the better explanation

I've noticed something on Reddit that I can't really unsee anymore.

There are a lot of people posting their own frameworks, models, systems, theories, etc. They often have completely different names and use completely different language — but sometimes they seem to be circling around surprisingly similar questions.

It made me wonder if AI is creating a new kind of intellectual workflow.

Someone has a question they've been thinking about for years but never had the tools to properly work through. They start talking to an AI about it. The conversation helps them explore the idea, find connections, test assumptions, organize it, and eventually turn it into some kind of framework.

Then they take that framework out of the AI conversation and bring it to Reddit.

So AI isn't necessarily giving them the answer.

It may be giving people a way to develop and externalize ideas that previously stayed inside their heads.

I don't know how common this actually is. Maybe it's 1%. Maybe 5%. Maybe I'm completely wrong.

But I've started wondering:

How many of the frameworks and personal theories we're seeing online are actually products of people using AI as a thinking partner?

And if this is happening at scale, what does that mean for how new ideas are going to emerge and spread?

Edit: I haven't expected so much people. Finnaly some interesting people actually wrote, some of them just keep playing their upvote games, but so far, I'm happy that thought resonated at least a bit. Such good sub I haven't seen for quite a time.