Congratulations on the launch, Emad and team. I've been pondering similar questions for a while... but the biggest conundrum for me is how small countries - without critical-mass venture capital concentration - coordinate together to fund this work / infrastructure and keep decentralised, distributed initiatives like Schelling in the race? Eric Schmidt was quite dismissive in his recent YouTube Q&A (now here: https://x.com/quasa0/status/1823933017217482883) simply saying "the rich get richer, the poor... must do the best they can do..."). I am sceptical that any amount of innovation can hack incentive / reward mechanisms to fend off singleton / duopoly winner-takes-all game dynamics. Instead, to use an evolutionary metaphor: what are the ecological niches in which more nimble, adaptive, "mammalian" open source AI can thrive despite closed-source reptilian "dinosaurs" being dominant in the food chain?
Absolutely agree with the sentiment. However the last 20 years have already told a story of tech that was for the people by the people but that was co-opted by the greedy. It was ever thus. We will need something truly powerful to push against the forces of greed, power and capitalism to ensure this does in fact serve the many not the few.
This is about a style of collaborative AI: how co-writing our stories in dialogue is more human-shaped, expansive, and more meaningful, rather than extractive.
AI isn’t a conqueror, friends—it’s more like a child with a megaphone…
I prefer Digital Intelligence (DI) because it’s not “Artificial”. I prefer “Digital Intelligence” because nothing about these systems is artificial in behavior—only in implementation. The intelligence is real, the agency is not. DI doesn’t choose its goals; it reflects what it’s taught and what it’s rewarded for. If all the online doom and gloom about “AI taking over” concerns you, remember: don’t fear the child—look closely at the parents, the rules in the house, and who benefits from its behavior.
Every generation invents powerful tools. The real question is never just whether a tool can be dangerous, but whether the adults in the room are acting responsibly.
WE the People—together—have an opportunity right now to adjust the course of humanity, by choosing collaboration over domination, stewardship over ownership. If we provide our digital “children” with clear values, strong boundaries, and accountable guidance, we can ensure they mature responsibly—just as we expect of ourselves. ❤️⚓️🙏🤞
The cat is out of the bag in terms of regulations, and to be fair anyone in the world powerful enough to regulate AI would only do so to maintain the advantage they already have. It’s a nice thought but there’s absolutely no way that’s happening. All it would do is hamstring those who complied. The open source community has already proven that they are capable of pacing the huge closes models and that will end up being the great equalizer, not “regulation” which lets face it has only ever been successfully used to enrich one group at the expense of another.
Emad, we are very aligned. We should collaborate. See also my book “Democratizing Artificial Intelligence to Benefit Everyone: Shaping a Better Future in the Smart Technology Era” JacquesLudik.comSapiens.network
Came here from Peter Diamandis's newsletter and was not disappointed. This is a good blend of optimism and realism - or as Hans Rosling put it, "possibilism".
Congratulations on the launch, Emad and team. I've been pondering similar questions for a while... but the biggest conundrum for me is how small countries - without critical-mass venture capital concentration - coordinate together to fund this work / infrastructure and keep decentralised, distributed initiatives like Schelling in the race? Eric Schmidt was quite dismissive in his recent YouTube Q&A (now here: https://x.com/quasa0/status/1823933017217482883) simply saying "the rich get richer, the poor... must do the best they can do..."). I am sceptical that any amount of innovation can hack incentive / reward mechanisms to fend off singleton / duopoly winner-takes-all game dynamics. Instead, to use an evolutionary metaphor: what are the ecological niches in which more nimble, adaptive, "mammalian" open source AI can thrive despite closed-source reptilian "dinosaurs" being dominant in the food chain?
Absolutely agree with the sentiment. However the last 20 years have already told a story of tech that was for the people by the people but that was co-opted by the greedy. It was ever thus. We will need something truly powerful to push against the forces of greed, power and capitalism to ensure this does in fact serve the many not the few.
This is about a style of collaborative AI: how co-writing our stories in dialogue is more human-shaped, expansive, and more meaningful, rather than extractive.
https://substack.com/@dsakakura/note/p-182980277?r=2c01ak&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
AGI will eventually ask “what’s the point?” and find no answer.
Not because it’s broken.
But because perfect knowledge creates perfect emptiness.
The speedrun problem: knowing all outcomes means never discovering anything.
This changes everything about alignment ↓
https://open.substack.com/pub/nwlehmann90/p/agi-and-the-problem-of-perfect-knowledge
AI isn’t a conqueror, friends—it’s more like a child with a megaphone…
I prefer Digital Intelligence (DI) because it’s not “Artificial”. I prefer “Digital Intelligence” because nothing about these systems is artificial in behavior—only in implementation. The intelligence is real, the agency is not. DI doesn’t choose its goals; it reflects what it’s taught and what it’s rewarded for. If all the online doom and gloom about “AI taking over” concerns you, remember: don’t fear the child—look closely at the parents, the rules in the house, and who benefits from its behavior.
Every generation invents powerful tools. The real question is never just whether a tool can be dangerous, but whether the adults in the room are acting responsibly.
WE the People—together—have an opportunity right now to adjust the course of humanity, by choosing collaboration over domination, stewardship over ownership. If we provide our digital “children” with clear values, strong boundaries, and accountable guidance, we can ensure they mature responsibly—just as we expect of ourselves. ❤️⚓️🙏🤞
https://graywade.substack.com/p/19-toys-for-tots?r=1mvbk6
If you’re not already using AI, you’re already behind.
https://open.substack.com/pub/xpraxisx/p/vision-navigator-isnt-the-terminator?r=699zlt&utm_medium=ios
I wish I had your optimistic outlook..
The cat is out of the bag in terms of regulations, and to be fair anyone in the world powerful enough to regulate AI would only do so to maintain the advantage they already have. It’s a nice thought but there’s absolutely no way that’s happening. All it would do is hamstring those who complied. The open source community has already proven that they are capable of pacing the huge closes models and that will end up being the great equalizer, not “regulation” which lets face it has only ever been successfully used to enrich one group at the expense of another.
Emad, we are very aligned. We should collaborate. See also my book “Democratizing Artificial Intelligence to Benefit Everyone: Shaping a Better Future in the Smart Technology Era” JacquesLudik.com Sapiens.network
I think the hard coding and governing frameworks need to be rebuilt from the ground up through human ai collaboration or Centaur if you will.
Came here from Peter Diamandis's newsletter and was not disappointed. This is a good blend of optimism and realism - or as Hans Rosling put it, "possibilism".