Give some people a lump of gold, and they’ll complain it’s too heavy.

Company: We want employees to think strategically. Employee: This is going to cause problems in six months. Company: Right now we just need to get it done.

People after booking their flights in 2 clicks instead of talking to LLM for half an hour

OpenAI using frontier model to turn 2-click travel booking into a 30-minute chat with Dots

The pope is calling your AI art shit in Latin

I want to be honest about how we’ve got to a place where British billpayers are paying some of the highest energy costs in Europe. Over the past 40 years, we’ve given up control of our necessities, outsourced our essentials and privatised the basics. Water, transport, housing. And of course, energy. Now the public are paying the price. We haven’t invested in the infrastructure we need. Conflict overseas has pushed up energy costs and it’s hurting our businesses and families. That’s why we need to take back greater control of our energy system. This week, I announced Great British Grid, which will speed up connections and push down bills. We’re also giving mayors, local leaders and communities a stronger role. With funding for People’s Power projects, communities will be able to build solar panels on libraries and town halls, hydro schemes in rivers or publicly owned windfarms on local land. But it’s not just energy we need stronger public control over. It’s also water, housing, transport and care. So we’re repealing the ban on public ownership of water companies. We’re building more council homes than this country has seen since the end of World War Two. We’re reforming the leasehold system so families aren’t squeezed for every penny. And we’re opening up home ownership for first time buyers who can’t rely on the bank of mum and dad. This week I also announced my determination to introduce a National Care Service, to put people above profit and to give pensioners peace of mind. Together, we’ll rewire the country from top to bottom so that it works for all people in all places. That is the only way to put Britain back on the right path. It’s the only way to put power back in people’s hands. And it’s the only way we will bring hope again.

This is absolutely priceless. Tucker just states as fact that Russia has a much larger economy than the UK, is completely wrong and gets schooled.

In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.

Blackmail is a great response to a finding of serious financial malpractice If we ever wondered about the UAE's instincts, all doubt has not been erased

Don’t think I’ve ever seen a statement on not saying anything before.

Third question on AI. A question that also remains unasked is whether the AI boom can continue without leading to a massive increase in inequality. A recent paper by Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh runs the numbers on how much revenue the AI industry needs to generate to recover its massive investment (summary and a link to the paper can be found here: brookings.edu/articles/finan…). Van Nieuwerburgh’s arithmetic should make us more concerned. AI investments will average about 3.6% of GDP annually between 2025 and 2032. Van Nieuwerburgh calculates that, using a 10% rate of return, the industry would need to generate annual revenues of about $3.7 trillion by 2032 to recover these costs (growing from its current levels of about $200 billion or so). That is significantly more than 10% of current US national income, and will likely remain around 10% of national income by 2032, even if GDP growth rose from its current level. A large fraction of this revenue will go to capital income. That means a massive increase in the share of capital in national income, which has already risen substantially over the last 25 years or so – now standing at an all-time high of about 47% (bls.gov/news.release/pdf/pro…). Capital income is much more unequally distributed than labor income, so a massive increase in the capital share of national income will translate into a very sizable surge in inequality. The rise in inequality may not stop with the capital share. My work with Pascual Restrepo documents that (automation-driven) increases in the capital share of national income are typically associated with rising labor income inequality as well (see, for example, economics.mit.edu/sites/defa…). The same may happen in the next several years, boosting inequality further. What is missing from our current debate is any discussion of a fundamental dilemma these numbers pose: can the AI boom avoid both an economically costly crash and a huge increase in inequality? If the industry reaches these revenues, inequality surges. If the industry does not become profitable, a crash, with substantial costs in terms of lost output and jobs, becomes likely. My assessment would be that the industry is unlikely to reach levels of revenue Van Nieuwerburgh calculates. First, diffusion has been and will likely continue to be slow. Second, competition from open-weight models, which are getting better, will limit how much proprietary models can charge. Third, despite important advances, I still believe that AI models will not be able to automate entire occupations anytime soon, thus limiting their value to businesses as cost-saving devices. Whether this leads to a crash or not is more complicated and will depend on whether various AI companies are bailed out and what kind of support they receive. Nevertheless, even if revenues fall short of these gargantuan amounts and we avoid a dramatic surge in inequality, I expect that the diffusion of AI will push up inequality between capital and labor and within labor. If inequality does surge, a further question becomes central: can our democracy survive such astronomical levels of inequality?

Poor - and biased - response from Andy Burnham on Manchester City being found guilty of all charges related to serious breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules by an Independent Commission. He says “I can’t intervene *more* in the process,” which requires an explanation in itself. Then offers commentary on previous proceedings he felt was unfair, AND states he wouldn’t want to lose the club’s owners who have “been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester. Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.” How was that force built? And on the investment into the city itself, per a 2022 Guardian report: “Nine sites were sold to Sheikh Mansour at a fraction of their value, and well below what other plots nearby fetched. They were on leases lasting 999 years, well beyond the norm. And the fund shifted what had been public assets to companies registered in Jersey. “That walk along the water from New Islington into Ancoats now passes blocks of privatised land owned in an offshore tax haven, which yields millions upon millions for a key member of the wealthy elite running a surveillance state halfway across the globe. One of the greatest cities in the world has sold itself to a senior figure in a brutal autocracy – and not even for a good price.”

Etihad threatening to sue. UAE reportedly intimating that UK investment could be pulled. A Prime Minister couching any criticisism. If this sorry saga doesn't convince you that state ownership of football clubs should never be allowed, nothing ever will.

They’re going to ban open weight models because they’re dangerous. No, that won’t stop threat actors from using them, but it will stop enterprises. And that’s the whole point.

It's true. The principle of least privilege, separation of duties, input sanitization, logging & monitoring, defense in depth -- all apply to AI.

I finally found a PM I could get behind and he’s on the side of the fraudsters 🤦🏼‍♂️

Has someone remembered to wake that guy from Green Day up?

A revolution in software engineering: you can now ship products at the same speed as before, but you're paying for tokens and your job sucks

Misspelling the name of your own country in a document about super intelligence is an impressive feat.

Manchester City when asked for the “irrefutable evidence”

🚨 WATCH: Andy Burnham announces he will repeal Margaret Thatcher's "ideological ban" on public ownership of water companies