Exposing the AI panic: who actually profits? copertina

Exposing the AI panic: who actually profits?

Exposing the AI panic: who actually profits?

Ascolta gratuitamente

Vedi i dettagli del titolo

Offerte di stagione | 0,99 €/mese per i primi 3 mesi

A seguire 9,99 €/mese – si applicano condizioni. Puoi disdire mensilmente.
This week a guy who, as far as anyone can tell, had never posted anything in his life put up a thread about artificial intelligence and got 170 million eyeballs on it in five days.A former Anthropic employee, or so the byline says. Within 48 hours you had Senator Bernie Sanders talking about banning superintelligence, market people calling for a bloodbath on Monday morning, and half my group chats forwarding the same screenshot to each other.Then, almost on cue, the chief executive of one of the biggest AI labs on earth published an essay saying, and I am paraphrasing, we need to slow this thing down before it gets away from us.And then China told him to get lost.So here is the question I want to sit with. Not “is AI going to kill us all.” That is the wrong question, and frankly it is the question everybody wants you asking, because it sells. The question is this. When the most powerful people in the most powerful technology of our lifetime suddenly all agree you should be afraid, or suddenly all agree you should not be, who actually benefits from that?And the second one, the question that matters if you are reading this from KL, Manila, Bangkok, Jakarta or Singapore. While the big boys fight about the brakes, are we building this future, or are we just being told what the rules are?One. Where I stand, so you knowLet me put my cards on the table before I say another word, because I am about to be skeptical of a lot of people in this piece, and you deserve to know where I am coming from.I am an optimist on AI. Full stop. I invest in it. I use it every single day, in my fund, in my other businesses, in how I read the market. I think it is one of the best things to ever happen to a small team trying to compete against a large incumbent. If you are a founder in this region with four people and a good idea, this is the closest thing you have ever had to a fair fight.So I am not here to scare you.But optimism is not the same thing as being naive, and this is the part people get wrong. Every powerful technology in human history arrived with bad actors attached to it. Every single one. Fire, gunpowder, nuclear fission, the internet. Even the ATM got used for fraud. Cheques got used for fraud. The tool does not decide. People do.There will always be rogue states. There will always be criminals. There will always be somebody who wants to take the sharp end of a good thing and hurt someone with it. That is not an AI problem. That is a human problem, and it is as old as we are.So hold both of these at once, because I am going to keep coming back to it. I am bullish. I am also clear-eyed. Those are not opposites. Anybody telling you that you have to pick one is selling you something.Two. Panic has sponsors nowBack to our mystery man and his 170 million impressions.Here is what should bother you about that thread, and it has nothing to do with what he actually said. Multiple outlets that dug into it came away thinking the virality itself was manufactured. An account with basically no history, suddenly spiking on numbers that do not behave the way organic posts behave.In plain language: somebody may have paid to make you panic.I do not know that for certain, and neither does anyone else, and that is exactly the point. We now live in a world where the fear itself is a product. Somebody can build it, ship it and sell it. Whether the goal is attention, influence, or moving a stock on a Monday morning, panic has sponsors.So when a piece of content seems engineered to make your stomach drop, the correct response is not to feel the fear and forward it to the family group chat. The correct response is to ask a boring question. Who wanted me to feel this way, and what do they get if I do?That is not cynicism. That is media literacy in 2026. And it applies just as hard to the calm, reassuring voices as it does to the scary ones. Keep it in your pocket, we need it in about two minutes.Three. Sincere and self-serving are not oppositesOn 12 September, Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic, published an essay called “We Must Pace the Frontier.” Just under 4,000 words, which by the standards of this genre counts as restraint.The core argument is reasonable on its face. He is not saying stop, and he is careful about that. He is saying slow the rate at which these models get more capable, so that the safety work and the outside checking can keep up. His worry is recursive self-improvement, which is a fancy way of saying an AI that gets good enough at building the next AI that the whole thing starts accelerating on its own, faster than any human can supervise it. His ask is that each generation gets aligned and checked by independent evaluators before anyone sprints to the next one.Honestly, as reasoning, that is not crazy. If you were building a bridge and you had a machine that could design the next, taller bridge by itself, you would want to inspect a few of them before you drove your family across.But here is where ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Ancora nessuna recensione