ImmersiveMatthew

I too have been in the inside and I was one of those types who fought to do the right thing. The reason was much more simple to understand than this article…companies are run by sociopaths, psychopaths, Narcissists and doing the right thing is not their motivation. That said, while it might be easy to point the finger at them, they only get their power as soon as many kiss their ass and accept the wrong. You know…sort of like what is happening in the USA and most other country’s. We have a massive problem and we are not even really talking about it. Instead some want to blame capitalism and while sure it is part of the problem, you better believe and centralized human group has and will suffer from the same issues to varying degrees.

Poor New Zealand always being ignored.

I think you have to pick the low hanging fruit and go from there. For instance, we are here and already have made a small, but measurable dent to Reddit traffic. Imagine if everyone came over here, Reddit would no longer be viable as a profit company. Google would collapse if we all supported Peer Tube. Of course these are not going to change the world, but I am convinced if/when decentralization gets traction, we will find ways to implement it everywhere it makes sense. It is about balance as there are benefits to centralization and I am not suggesting everyone is decentralized, but right now the scales are out of balance and we have some tools to start to rebalance. We just have to want it. Well maybe need it which seems to be coming.

I love AI and use it everyday, but right now it absolutely lacks logic, even the reasoning models and thus it really cannot replace a whole person outside of what 1 prompt can give you which is not a career.

It is not just Capitalism…is is centralization in all its forms. Too much power in the hands of the few always leads to poor outcomes for the many. This is bigger than Capitalism.

I think the shame is on the part of all Americans as this is on them sadly even the good ones.

Agreed. I would add that not only would job loss be enormous, but many corporations are suddenly going to be competing with individuals armed with the same AI.

I too am a developer and I am sure you will agree that while the overall intelligence of models continues to rise, without a concerted focus on enhancing logic, the promise of AGI likely will remain elusive.  AI cannot really develop without the logic being dramatically improved, yet logic is rather stagnant even in the latest reasoning models when it comes to coding at least.

I would argue that if we had much better logic with all other metrics being the same, we would have AGI now and developer jobs would be at risk. Given the lack of discussion about the logic gaps, I do not foresee AGI arriving anytime soon even with bigger a bigger models coming.

That is why centralized platforms, especially powerful ones, are sitting ducks waiting to become even more corrupt. Why more people are not leaving centralized services is a crime against humanity as it is clear that supporting theme means society suffers.

I realized we can do a meta analysis ChatGPT4.5 Deep Analysis and this PDF is the result. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQb4bslfB70Rj9YqswvEjFYlWZIea08p-oz4XQxus1XxGPHjjyu8WG_rytmEJfA9n0lPrYzkoWNHSbK/pub

If you have a paper or even your own meta analysis to counter this, please add to the discussion as the general consensus does not align to your comment "if it was mostly from an exploding star, it would have a lot less hydrogen in it. Suns consume hydrogen over their lifetime turning it into energy and heavier materials."

Thanks for sharing your reflections. I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind them.

I genuinely understand your perspective, as I've encountered similar skepticism throughout my career, especially when digitizing old manual and paper-based processes. I vividly remember the pushback, like "Digital processes won't work," "They’re too risky," or "They’ll create more complexity." Yet, every objection raised against digital systems could equally apply (and often more strongly) to the existing paper systems that everyone had previously accepted without question.

I feel we're seeing a similar pattern with AI. We raise concerns about AI’s superficiality, adaptability, and its ability to mimic deep reflection without genuine thought. But if we pause and reflect honestly, we might realize that humans frequently exhibit these same traits as well.

Not all peer-reviewed human research stands the test of time. Sometimes entire societal norms have been shaped by papers that later turned out to be deeply flawed or outright wrong. Humans also excel at manipulation, adapting our arguments to resonate emotionally or socially with others, sometimes just to win approval or avoid conflict rather than genuinely seeking truth.

So, while I fully acknowledge and agree with your points about AI’s inherent limitations, I think it's equally valuable to recognize these same limitations in ourselves. In that sense, the conversations we have with AI, fleeting and imperfect as they may be, can help us better understand our own nature, vulnerabilities, and patterns.

I guess the deeper question isn't whether ChatGPT is meaningful in itself, but rather how it can help us see the meaning (and perhaps some of the illusion) in our own thoughts and feelings.

As for your question about which part ChatGPT might have helped you articulate, it's somewhat irrelevant. Regardless of the source, you've vetted it and presented it as your own, without identifying the exact source. AI is essentially an extension of our brains. Even though it physically exists somewhere on external hardware or even locally, when processed and shared, it becomes part of our human cognition—right or wrong. Personally, I don't see AI as something separate from us. Rather, it is me, you, all of us, and all knowledge ever captured and documented. In my view, it's the next evolution of the human brain.