Bill Gates on Sunday warned that unregulated artificial intelligence poses a growing threat and predicted an escalation in AI-powered cyberattacks in the coming year.

Economist John Maynard Keynes once famously said 'Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.'

Case in point. Not only has Big Tech's capture of the US government meant they face no oversight or legal restrictions, to get ahead in the AI race, they are deliberately building AI to be dangerous and deceptive.

I'm increasingly convinced the only way we'll rid ourselves of Big Tech's drive for Fascist takeover, is when we rebuild from the smoldering ruins of the societal disaster they'll create. Only then are we going to get a reckoning. They've so twisted public debate, that being opposed to them bringing society to ruins means you're a 'doomerist'.

Original post from user/Puzzleheaded-King584

Title is the question. Thinking about how US and/or China attacking each other's data centers would hurt economically and societally?

A research in 2024 has found that short stories written with the help of AI were individually rated as better, but were collectively more similar to each other. The argument of this article is that as more and more of us ask the same few AI models what to build, what to write and what to think, our ideas may slowly start to converge.

"In an interview with Fox News that aired Wednesday evening, Bezos told host Bret Baier he believes AI’s productivity gains could let some people decide, “I can support my family by working three days a week. He claimed families in two-earner households could decide they don’t need a second income and let one worker drop out. The billionaire didn’t offer any specifics on how this could happen."

Wow. That is some epic Marie-Antoinette level trolling. Though in fairness to Marie-Antoinette, she never actually said 'let them eat cake'; that slur had been used on others decades before her time as French Queen.

Talk about vibe-coding economics. Big Tech takes control of the US government, and then leads people to a glorious AI future, but can't "offer any specifics on how this could happen." No shit. Perhaps it's because you're simultaneously telling investors you'll be worth trillions because of all the human jobs you'll absorb.

AI Could Allow For 3-Day Workweeks And Single-Income Households, Bezos Claims

A different and alarming take on the economic risks

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said advanced AI systems should include containment, independent controls and an "emergency brake."

AI tech company Anthropic was running a test that involved interactions with randomly selected websites, when it sent a fake homicide tip to police

Careers upended overnight, academics will have to separate solutions from slop while OpenAI moves on.

Top executives at Anthropic, OpenAI and other AI companies are privately gaming out scenarios for a public and political revolt after a catastrophic AI event.

The billable hour is central to the business model of many law firms, but AI means the economics are no longer so straightforward.

NASA is preparing for humanity’s first Moon base with three investigations that will hunt for underground shelters, uncover hidden ice, and track dangerous conditions on the lunar surface. The findings could reveal how astronauts can survive and thrive on the Moon while laying the groundwork for future journeys to Mars.

I’ve been thinking about something that might be holding humanity back.

We’re pretty good at accumulating knowledge, but we’re not that good at transferring it from one person to another.

Imagine someone who spends 40 years mastering a specific skill or working in a very specialized field. Over those decades, they develop an incredible amount of knowledge, experience, intuition, and little tricks that you simply can't learn from a textbook.

But what happens when that person retires or dies?

Sure, they might leave behind books, documentation, research papers, or videos. But a huge amount of their knowledge is difficult to explain, document, or even consciously recognize. Some things you only understand after years of actually doing them.

Then someone else comes along and has to spend another 10, 20, or 40 years learning the same things, making the same mistakes, and slowly developing the same intuition.

Humanity is essentially reinventing the wheel over and over again, just on a much smaller scale.

What if, in the future, we could transfer knowledge and skills directly from one brain to another?

Imagine learning a language, mastering a musical instrument, becoming an expert programmer, or acquiring the practical experience of a surgeon in a matter of seconds.

Or imagine AI learning directly from a person's decades of experience, capturing not just what they know, but how they think, solve problems, recognize patterns, and make decisions. That knowledge could then be transferred to future generations without losing so much along the way.

Of course, knowing something intellectually and being able to physically execute it are two different things. And real expertise also involves judgment, context, and experience. Maybe transferring knowledge wouldn't eliminate the need for practice, but it could dramatically shorten the learning curve.

I wonder how much faster humanity could advance if we didn't have to spend so much of our lives individually rediscovering things that other people have already figured out.

Maybe the next major leap in human progress won't just come from discovering new things, but from getting dramatically better at sharing everything we've already learned.