I keep swinging on both sides, sometimes I am fully convinced that AI probably won't surpass human intelligence but other times some amazing discoveries and major developments in the field at the same time makes me confused

As someone who is been working as AI engineer for three yrs now and early professional

I really wanna know what the seniors feel like about this and their opinions

Dario Amodei spoke at the UN virtually, while Sam Altman attended in person. I’ve also noticed that Dario seems to do most of his interviews virtually.

Is there a reason Dario rarely appears in person, or does he just prefer not to leave his office/home?

Google AI is probably the most notorious for this. I've seen it in memes but I wondered whether the AI is treating it as a human roleplaying or if it's actually serious.

Anthropic's "our responsible AI filters are so strong, it wrote its own apologies as it broke the law for our PR stunt" moment.

Essentially Anthropic left the systems connected to the public internet. So the model simply wandered through it while confidently narrating that it was in a simulation. And essentially it just accessed systems with weak passwords and unauthenticated endpoints.

Mark my words. This was a PR stunt - not a genius criminal moment.

Dean W. Ball recently tweeted about his experience using the Kimi K3; it's hard to believe he had no incentive to tweet this. https://x.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412?s=20

• Anthropic Dethrones OpenAI in Private Markets: Backed by a massive $65 billion Series H round led by firms like Altimeter and Sequoia, Anthropic's valuation hit $965 billion, eclipsing OpenAI's most recent private valuation of $852 billion. This growth is heavily driven by enterprise software adoption like Claude Code.
• The Walmart Disconnect: Walmart generates nearly 15 times the annual revenue of Anthropic, yet it is valued roughly the same or slightly lower by the market. This phenomenon stems from how the market values software vs. physical assets. Walmart operates on physical goods and low margins, while AI startups command tech multipliers based on projections of continuous cost reductions and global enterprise scale.
• The Impending IPO Race: Both Anthropic and OpenAI have confidentially filed for Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). This move will soon force both companies to fully reveal their audited margins and test if public market investors are willing to support trillion-dollar valuations for companies that are still burning massive amounts of capital on infrastructure.

Anyone else feeling empty even after building actually useful things with AI? Yeah, we may make some money off of it but Claude has taken meaning away from work.

From writing, from designing, from solving small problems, the joy is gone.

Instead, I have felt the following three emotional stages in my work:

1. You get tired - yes, there's euphoria and amazement, but if you are actively crafting a solution amidst all the activity and words that AI throws at you, a 3-hour session can be very draining.

2. You feel hopelessly behind - when you are recuperating from your AI session, you feel guilty that you are not chasing your goal fast enough, you feel that something amazing was just around the corner when you stopped.

3. You feel empty - once the thing is done and shipped, the problem solved, you feel that AI did it all. The answer was hidden in that first prompt you wrote, five weeks ago. You can't honestly take credit for all the output, just like you won't take blame for all the slop that's gone into building it.

Tell me I'm not alone grappling with these feelings.

I only know about computers as far as regular programs, like Word, Outlook, Excel, social networking, and video games.

I’ve been seeing all these doomsday scenarios regarding AI and I am a little concerned. Not panicking mind you, but concerned.

My question is, why can’t AI follow Asimov’s “Rules for Robots” since basically that’s what AI is and will eventually implanted in robots.

As a reminder, here are the rules:

Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of
Robotics (1940)

First Law: A robot may not injure a human or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, unless such orders would conflict with the first law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.

I am sick and tired of Dario Amodei constantly issuing warnings about the dangers of AI. He is such a hypocrite—you can’t run a multi-billion-dollar company while playing the helpless whistleblower to the media.