​

(https://websterjournal.com/matpat-draws-overwhelming-crowd-at-keynote-event/)

Honestly, I agree with that approach.

You can criticise AI without treating the entire technology as inherently evil. You can acknowledge its flaws without pretending it has no legitimate uses. You can defend artists without attacking everyone who uses AI to create.

AI being capable of producing garbage doesn't mean every AI-assisted creation is garbage. That's judging the tool by its worst outputs rather than examining what someone actually does with it. This is what me and most pros I have talked to believe in how people should handle the technology.

https://openai.com/index/building-scientific-understanding-with-academic-communities/

The Kakeya conjecture…Implications in:

Medical imaging, Earthquake and geological modeling, and sound and communications

Exponential Time Hypothesis being false (the huge one)…implications in:

Computer engineering and software, logistics and optimization, biological and pharmaceutical research, and lol Artificial Intelligence development itself (when the techniques behind this discovery become practical, an AI system might search larger solution spaces, verify more possibilities, or solve certain constraint problems with fewer resources)

More efficient software and engineering tools.

Better scheduling and allocation of limited resources.

Faster verification of increasingly complex computer systems.

Improved computational methods in scientific research.

More capable AI systems for certain reasoning tasks

Quantum chromodynamics and the Standard Model: Giving fundamental physics a rigorous mathematical foundation

Im gonna leave this one to the mathematics and math subreddits. They are excited in ways that I can’t properly convey because I lack the technical knowledge and cannot verify any ai outputs personally. So I’ll direct you to either the “math” subreddit or the “mathematics” subreddit.

But I will say this. In 2027, you’ll have these discoveries every three days in just about every technical field of math, biology, physics, and machine learning.

OpenAI and Anthropic are cooked...

Shigeru Miyamoto shared thoughts on generative AI and its meaning for creativity in game development.

He compared AI to the evolution of computers and design tools. As technology handles more technical work, human design sense and creative judgment grow more important.

Miyamoto distinguishes between “creating something” and “doing the work.”

Creating starts with deciding what to make, building the overall structure, and having clear intention. The work that follows fills in details, polishes, and executes the idea.

“People can become so satisfied with the work itself that they start mistaking that satisfaction for having created something good.”

Miyamoto believes AI taking over repetitive work could give people more chances to focus on what they truly want to create.

“The more AI takes care of all kinds of tasks for us, the more opportunities we all have to think seriously about what it really means to create something.”

He acknowledges AI could eventually handle almost everything in the creative process, but for now:

“I think there’s still plenty that we humans can do.”

some of that stuff is so ass idk if i wanna be associated with yall at this point

https://x.com/rrwilliams/status/2114935153466479100

https://openai.com/index/building-scientific-understanding-with-academic-communities/

A billion-dollar corporation uses AI to replace 40,000 employees and optimize the price of a sandwich down to the individual customer's financial desperation and nobody bats an eye.

But some guy running a plumbing business out of his garage uses ChatGPT to write a professional email and suddenly he's unprofessional and not trustworthy.

Apparently small business owners are supposed to spend 14 hours working, come home and personally write every invoice, advertisement, website description, and customer response with their own blood.

God forbid an individual gets access to technology that used to require an entire corporate department.

No. The plumber needs to hire a marketing agency for $3,000 a month. He needs a receptionist, a copywriter, a web developer, and preferably a middle manager to supervise the whole operation.

Otherwise the business isn't authentic.

Meanwhile Walmart is using enough computing power to simulate the birth of the universe to figure out how to squeeze as much profit out of each customer.

I really don’t enjoy the AI slop or bots in every social media app, so I’m anti- inasmuch as I just don’t want that crap on my feed anymore. But my personal lack of use of AI doesn’t have anything to do with that. I see AI and wonder what I would even use it for. Mostly it just gets in the way of my google searches.

I guess it’s in large part because I am not in an industry which requires me to use computers at all. So I can’t use it for my job. I’m not in school anymore so I don’t have any reason to try using it as a study tool. When I make art, it’s because I enjoy the process and I don’t really care about what the final product is, and generally don’t intend to share my art with others, it’s a private thing I do just for myself. And if I want to talk to someone, I can talk to a human being at pretty much any time I want.

So I am just not seeing any reason to use AI personally. There’s really nothing at all that AI seems to offer me. Anyone else struggling to see any personal value in this supposedly revolutionary technology? What do you even use this for?

Look, pro’s, I’d be happy to see some value here so that I get something out of this other than seeing low quality memes and ragebait bots.

Like what a fuck is this? Half face, half mask with some glowing eye, and why there is a phoenix in the corner?

I am genuinely curious if anyone here takes the "10-25% chance of human extinction" statistic seriously, because from a literal a statistic standpoint, it is pure sci-fi cosplay masquerading as math.

There is zero data, zero formula, and zero empirical evidence behind that number. It’s an informal vibe check cooked up by tech CEOs and researchers who call it "p(doom)" which is just a fancy, tech-bro term for a subjective gut feeling. To treat a multi-billion-dollar corporate "vibe" like a definitive statistical metric is completely absurd.

What’s even crazier is watching the anti-AI crowd completely buy into it. Antis constantly claim that tech CEOs are untrustworthy, manipulative hype-men who will say anything to pump up their stock prices. Yet, the absolute second those exact same CEOs say, "By the way, our software is so god-like and powerful it might accidentally destroy human civilization," Antis instantly drop all skepticism. They swallow the hype hook, line, and sinker, running around screaming, "Look! They admitted it themselves!"

It is a massive self-own. They are letting Silicon Valley corporate marketing completely dictate their talking points, falling for a hyper-inflated existential threat meant to distract everyone from everyday, real-world issues that we actually need to regulate AI on, but nah let's focus on p(doom)

I've been (or was) out of the AI game for quite a while and have missed a lot on the things that have been happening in that space. I considered myself an "anti-AI" because of my view on the companies that made the language models and on generative AI because as an amateur artist I didn't quite get most of what AI spat out or what I used to see on the internet that was generated with AI.

However the past few weeks a certain post about a Github repository appeared on my feed called "REA, Reverse Engineer Anything" and that caught my attention at first and then realized that it was AI-related, then I read about all the new jailbreaks, reverse engineered games and apps and new applications that people made with AI like the Adobe Suite replacement (the apps related to PhotoCraft) and so on and so forth and I started reading more and more about AI, the disadvantages and the benefits but I also found two extreme sides of the "AI war", one being extremely against and one being extremely pro and a few selected in the middle.

As of now, I'm not completely anti but I'm not completely pro, I can see the advantages of using AI in reverse engineering, software development, medicine, jailbreaking etc and also the disadvantages (or rather thinks I dislike) like generative AI, lots of (still) misinformation or the fact that people completely rely on LLM's for facts without double checking themselves.

I can agree that if not for AI usage we wouldn't for example have gotten a PS5 jailbreak so fast and screwed Sony over or maybe even the now upcoming Switch 2 jailbreak. Lots of people would have still been paying for the Adobe suite and not hopped over to the open source CraftSuite to help build that and so on and so forth or maybe even the fact that AI helped find breast cancer in a woman long before it even had developed and many other stuff that actually logically sound good.

Why is it like this? Why do we have people who completely hate it without admitting some benefits and why do are there many pros hating so much on antis?

Sorry if this is a dumb question or a dumb post, I just feel like out of the loop and have missed a lot and am trying to catch up.

We have access to a tool that can explain complicated subjects, help us understand our emotions, teach us new skills, challenge our perspectives, and turn ideas we struggle to express into something meaningful.

Yet one of the biggest questions we should be asking is whether we're using AI to develop ourselves or slowly teaching ourselves that we don't need to think for ourselves anymore.

I don't think AI is something we should automatically fear, and I don't think we should blindly trust it, either. There's a lot of potential here, and I believe people can use it to genuinely improve their lives.

But the way we use it matters.

There's a difference between asking AI to help you understand something and asking it to do all your understanding for you. There's a difference between using it to organize your thoughts and letting it decide what you should think. There's a difference between using it to improve your writing and losing confidence in your ability to express yourself without it.

The real question isn't whether AI is good or bad. It's whether we're becoming more capable because of it, or more dependent on it.

Lukewarm take but NOT ALL AI coding use leads to security vulnerability.

AI has found the PHP security vulnerability that has been there since a very long time: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/24/nx-s1-6012327/ai-found-the-flaw-hackers-found-the-leak-the-race-to-save-php2shell

Another example: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ai-discovered-bugs-may-soon-trigger-fresh-disruptions-cyber-experts-say-2026-10-23/

Yet another example of Claude finding multiple zero day vulnerability: https://thehackernews.com/2026/02/claude-opus-46-finds-500-high-severity.html?m=1

Google Big Sleep AI agent finding software bugs in SQLite:

https://www.darkreading.com/application-security/google-big-sleep-ai-agent-sqlite-software-bug

Most security breach incidents has happened before AI and after AI coding use. As long as you are not coding AI uncritically, AI can help find security vulnerability and bugs that you may not have caught yourself. It doesn’t matter if you use AI or not use AI for coding, as long as the code is safe and secure, that matters a lot more. Personally, if you refuse to use AI, and there so happens if there is a bug that could be found with AI specifically, then your negligence harms your end users.
Similarly, using AI uncritically and exposing users to bugs and security issues is also bad.

Regarding the current state of big tech, I believe companies shouldn’t rush people to the point that they have to “vibe code with AI” since I had personal experience with it myself. AI use should be double checked by humans and reviewed accordingly push out code with a reasonable amount of time to make sure code is safe and secure.

I use AI every day. To plan, build, write, learn, and quite often to find out where I’ve gone wrong. It makes mistakes, I make mistakes, and we catch each other’s.

Something has been bothering me lately. I keep seeing work dismissed the moment someone learns AI was involved. Not because the work was wrong or didn’t hold up, but because of how it was made.

I get the frustration. There is a mountain of low-effort stuff out there. But we had plenty of that before AI, too. People made all of it.

For me the better questions are: Is it true? Does it work? Can it stand up to scrutiny? And is someone willing to take responsibility when it doesn’t?

Of course how something was made can matter. Authorship, trust, disclosure, learning. I’m not dismissing any of those.
But I don’t think knowing AI was involved tells us nearly enough to judge the work itself.

Maybe I’m missing something here.

Where would you draw the line?

There has something interesting I have been noticing when I talk to people regarding generative AI.

I understand where and why some people dislike generative AI due to concerns such as privacy, unconsented scraping, and more. However, when I ask how people feel about the internet and the fact that both GenAI and internet share similar flaws to each other, a lot of them seem to be a lot more accepting of the internet. You can replace almost any AI argument with the internet and it will still hold true. I expect those who are against AI to be similarly against the internet’s ethical issues. They are not. They use the internet without the same guilt compared to AI.

A common argument is that internet has more benefits over harms compared to GenAI. However, even if the internet has more utility/benefits, that does not erase its harms or absolve it of criticism. In fact, its good to educate yourself more both on genai and internet and advocate for better policies and laws to reduce harm.

This is not whataboutism by the way. I am not dismissing AI fears and concerns. I am saying that these issues of generative AI were never new, and just more apparent after AI was released. I wish more people talk about the internet flaws more than just focusing that AI only shares these flaws, when that is apparently not true.

I want to add a concrete experience to the conversation about AI and ableism after commonting on this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/NnoZaMMzsG

I’m blind. I have central vision loss; that is, I can't see fine detail at all. I haven't been able to read a book for 10 years. Haven't been able to drive for 6. And now, writing the old fashioned way, just as I have done for 30 years, is starting to become difficult.

I also have fourteen novels that have been sitting idle, waiting for publication. One of the biggest barriers has been revision. Writing a draft and being able to reliably work through revisions yourself are very different things. Before ChatGPT, revision wasn’t something I could reliably do independently. Now it is.

Writing - revision, in particular - is a visually intense art form. You're always reading back through the manuscript, trying to find a path forward that will delight the reader. Watching myself slowly lose that capability has been among the hardest parts of my disability journey.

But now, with AI assistance, I can write again.

It also allows me to develop software. I can have a conversation with my code, describe what I want, and work through changes without needing to strain what vision I do have left chasing semicolons in my javascript code.

The same goes for publishing. I can’t use visual layout tools. But I can write code with AI assistance to produce a well laid out design because, before my vision loss, I had years of experience as a layout editor. My first book is now ready for publication. The cover has human-made art, and the book’s design was done entirely through code I wrote with AI assistance.

There are tangible results: my website audience has been doubling about every two weeks for the past three months, and I’m now up to around 400 daily visitors. Work that was sitting unfinished is moving toward readers.

I can describe the stories I want to tell and the things I want to build. The barrier has been getting through tools and processes I couldn’t use independently. Being able to talk through the work has opened up possibilities I didn’t have before.

There’s room to criticize AI and discuss its costs. I also want those conversations to include disabled people who use it to get work done that we previously couldn’t do ourselves.

When I talk about AI as an accessibility tool, this is what I mean: I can finally revise my books, build software, and prepare my work for publication.

ETA: Lots of folks in the comments not knowing that 1) blindness is a spectrum, and 2) only 30% of the blind/low vision population is fully non light-sensitive. I have friends with RP who see perfectly 20/20 through a tiny pinhole. They're still blind, and part of the blind community.

Sources: https://youtu.be/b6EkiVFE0e8

https://youtu.be/1cllCVK-9lo

https://youtu.be/bEjwo1yUK8c