Production is shifting from human labor to autonomous agents. The open question is not whether machines can do the work, but whether people remain beneficiaries when they do.

The jobs apocalypse hasn’t arrived. Something else is happening instead.

The OpenAI CEO sought to distinguish his policy stance from rival developer Anthropic.

Implications of strategic stability attacks on military AI systems

perhaps something of an ambiguous question, but does anyone think there's anything that we, humanity (providing as a species we survive the next few hundred years) isn't capable of?

From curing all disease, figuring out immortality, space travel, terraforming, Dyson Spheres. Given enough time, is there anything that anyone genuinely doesn't believe will ever be possible?

Arguably the galaxy/universe is our oyster.

Artificial intelligence could create more jobs than it destroys, but millions of Americans could still be left scrambling.

Yesterday, I came across a statistic stating that more than 11% of adults in the US are currently taking Ozempic or other weight-loss alternatives. Honestly, I was absolutely astonished by how high that percentage already is.
It got me thinking about the future, and I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions on how this will reshape society over the next 10 years:
Will obesity disappear? Do you think "plus-size" or overweight people will become a rarity, or will socio-economic gaps (insurance coverage, high costs) prevent total adoption?
Will these medications become over-the-counter (OTC)? Do you foresee a future where weight-loss pills or oral versions of these drugs are sold casually at local drugstores or pharmacies without a strict prescription?
Will fast-food chains have to pivot? With millions of people experiencing suppressed appetites and fewer cravings for greasy, sugary foods, how will the fast-food and junk-food industries adapt to survive?
How do you envision the cultural, physical, and economic landscape of the US in 2035 because of this GLP-1 revolution?

​

I've been thinking about this for a while and want to hear where it fails.

A lot of the technology needed for more accountable identity, policing and public services already exists. What's missing is connecting it with a rule that no one gets unlimited access.

Take a traffic stop. You authenticate with a secure device instead of handing over five documents. The officer sees only what the stop needs: license status, registration, insurance. Not your medical file, not your full record. If they need more, they have to request it and give a reason. The officer is authenticated too. You'd see "Officer #47291", but the system knows exactly who that is. Every lookup is logged, and the officer can't delete the log afterward.

That cuts both ways. If an officer abuses their power, there's a record. If someone lies about what happened or assaults an officer, there's a record of that too. Speed cameras already do something like this: the violation exists before the stop, so there's less room for made-up reasons or bribes. They also give false positives, so any version of this needs a real appeals process.

In an emergency, authorized personnel could get temporary access without waiting for the normal process, but that access would automatically create an audit trail that can be reviewed afterward.

Estonia is the closest thing to a working example. Agencies keep their own data (X-Road), and citizens can see who looked at their records. India's Aadhaar shows the opposite risk: when one ID becomes mandatory for everything, people can get locked out and breaches can become extremely damaging.

My bigger idea is that healthcare and education could work around the same principle, with shared global baselines for things like medical protocols and core education, while local governments adapt them. A kid in Tunisia shouldn't receive dramatically worse healthcare or education simply because they were born somewhere with fewer resources.

And the point isn't to make everyone live the same life. It's the opposite. Give people a strong baseline of safety, healthcare, education and rights, then let them decide whether they want to become engineers, doctors, artists, entrepreneurs, or something completely different.

AI could eventually help operate and monitor parts of these systems, but I don't think AI should be the authority. It should be constrained by laws, permissions, audits and human oversight.

The part I can't solve is the same one that worries me most: who controls it?

Someone writes the code, holds the keys and chooses the auditors. Audit logs don't help if the people running the system can simply capture the auditing process. Hardware-protected keys, separated databases, independent auditors and multiple layers of authorization help, but I don't think they completely solve it.

The same problem exists with education. Saying "teach critical thinking" still means someone has to decide what gets taught.

So that's my question:

Is there a system where nobody can quietly take control of something this powerful, or is that fundamentally impossible?

Where would this design actually break?

Of all the US's export successes, surely its most pervasive is the soft-power export of culture. Movies, TV, music, etc And as much as China has surged to take every other 'top exporter' world crown, it's hard to imagine it taking the culture crown too, or is it?

Micro-dramas are not as big in the West as they are in China, where they generate twice as much revenue as movies. Micro-dramas have immense production cost advantages: the cost per minute of footage for AI micro-dramas is roughly 1,000 yuan ($140, https://yicai.com/news/103084978.html) while a typical Netflix drama costs $5M to $10M per hour-long episode, so $85,000 to $170,000 a minute. In other words, it's roughly a thousand times cheaper to produce. Furthermore producing localized versions in Thai, Spanish, Swahili, Arabic, etc is trivially cheap.

State Administration of Radio, Film and Television: 430,000 short dramas were launched in the first eight months of this year, 13 times the total for the whole of last year, and AI dramas accounted for more than 90%

A new White House task force will have 120 days to prepare a report on the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence and come up with decisions on what responsibility the federal government has over the fast-moving technology, said the head of the new group.

“The president asked that a group be put together that was going to ensure exactly what he said, which is that we stay the leaders in superintelligence, and that the interests of the American people are put first,” said Jay Clayton, who leads the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and who also will chair the “Super Intelligence Force,” or SI, which takes President Trump’s preferred name for AI. That effectively makes Clayton Trump’s new AI czar, a senior White House official said.

Formation of the group comes on the heels of a meeting Trump convened at the White House on Tuesday in which AI leaders, including OpenAI President Greg Brockman, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and the industry agreed to a series of principles including internal controls to monitor model development, external model reviews by third parties and notifications to the board of directors about those safety efforts, voluntary pledges that Trump hailed as the right approach.

“I will never stifle the growth of technology that will be bigger than the industrial revolution,” Trump said on Tuesday.

The task force will still yield to the industry as the primary vehicle for managing risks, officials said. But it will work in conjunction with the industry to identify risk and opportunities.

“I expect there will be mechanisms developed in dialogue, just like there are in other industries,” Clayton told The Wall Street Journal. He cited risk models for the financial industry that have been developed in conjunction with the Federal Reserve and Securities and Exchange Commission. He said the task force would examine current law and discuss possible actions that Congress could take.

The task force’s charter document states it will “develop plans for responding to SI-enabled threats to our society, while preventing overregulation and regulatory capture that would stifle innovation and competition.” It will also review current warnings and systemized notifications to the government of breaches, hacks, jailbreaks and other issues, and “recommend ways to improve the government’s response capacity under existing authorities.”

Formation of the task force follows rising public concern over AI, not just on its potential to wipe out jobs, but also is ability to perform sophisticated hacks and its use as a weapon—or even wipe out civilization, as some industry researchers fear. Data centers, which power the technology, also have faced growing public backlash.

Trump has largely advocated for less regulation, but the task force represents a growing recognition some government oversight will be necessary. Some inside the administration, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles have pushed for more government action to address the technology’s unpopularity and its potential for cyberattacks—in addition to the use of biological weapons enabled by AI advance. That divide withing the administration that has hampered policymaking at times.

Skeptics have argued that so-called self regulation isn’t adequate given that recent AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic and other companies have demonstrated that they are improving at potentially alarming rates.

The task force will have three vice chairs: Emil Michael, undersecretary of war for Research and Engineering, who will be responsible for coordination with AI companies; Scott Kupor, director of the Office of Personnel Management, who will be responsible for coordination with critical infrastructure providers and other industry stakeholders; and Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, who will oversee consumer interests and groups advocating for people of faith, children, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.

Members of the task force will include Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Bessent, Wiles and others. External participants will include venture capitalists David Sacks, co-chair of the president’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration, who will provide advice on national security.

“The Task Force shall act as a coordinating body to ensure that the U.S. remains at the forefront of SI development while protecting the American people,” the task force charter states. “Recognizing there has always been inherent unpredictability in the effects of significant technological change, the Task Force shall focus on ensuring that emerging opportunities and risks are identified and communicated to government personnel, industry, and the American people.”

The task force’s work could be extended beyond 120 days if necessary or have its functions transferred to a government agency, its charter says.

“I feel very comfortable that we’ve gotten a group with a lot of experience, diverse skill sets and a common commitment,” Clayton said. “These are all serious people who have addressed opportunities and risks in the past and are committed to doing this so that America wins the SI race and we win it through the benefit of the American people.”

This advancement could lead to “humans losing control over AI,” one leading AI lab says.

The industry’s approach to safety will guarantee more failures unless something changes.

Our Project Suncatcher prototype satellite is in orbit

I keep seeing AI experts say that electricians, plumbers, construction workers, gardeners, etc. will be some of the safest and best-paid jobs in an AI-driven future.

But isn't there a pretty obvious supply/demand problem here?

If AI replaces a huge percentage of today's jobs, millions of people could move into these "AI-proof" trades.

Today, maybe there aren't enough electricians. But if suddenly 10x more people want to become electricians because everyone says it's the safe career, wouldn't wages eventually fall?

This makes me think the more valuable jobs might actually be above AI rather than outside it, people who build, program, manage and supervise AI and robots, especially in situations where humans still need to be accountable.

We've already had an industrial revolution. Machines didn't just replace workers; they changed which skills were valuable.

So are we making the same mistake by assuming that "AI can't physically do this job" automatically means "this job will be highly paid"?

Curious what you guys think.

A few weeks ago an MMA inc signed Precision peptides company as an official sponsor and it's a small deal in the grand scheme but it's a significant marker of where we are in the adoption curve of performance biology.

A year ago this would have been unthinkable from a PR standpoint as research peptides exist in a legal gray zone so basically studied extensively in academic literature but not commercially sanctioned for human use. The community around them has been self organized, forum driven, built on shared research and bloodwork tracking which is entirely outside mainstream legitimacy.

A sports sponsorship changes the optics,it doesn't make the compounds more legal but makes them visible in a context that millions of people associate with peak human performance and that's a different kind of signal than a Pubmed study.

We are watching the same arc that happened with creatine in the 90s, with protein supplements in the 2000s and with TRT in the 2010s. Compounds that began in fringe research communities, got adopted by serious athletes then gradually normalized through commercial visibility until they became unremarkable.

Peptides like BPC-157, GHK-Cu, TB-500, the GLP-1 class are somewhere in the middle of that arc right now and the science has been serious for years, the adoption among biohackers and longevity researchers has been significant and what's been missing is the mainstream legitimacy signal.

The regulatory question is still unresolved and probably will be for years but cultural normalization and regulatory status have always moved on separate tracks. By the time regulators catch up to something, the public has usually already decided how they feel about it.

I don't think we are ten years from peptides being as unremarkable as protein powder,I think we are closer to five.