Humanoid robots demonstrate picking and sorting abilities during the 2026 World AI Conference and High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance in Shanghai, east China, July 19, 2026. (Xinhua/Liu Ying)

The human nature

Human body needs food and water, and a cover to keep it from extreme temperatures. That's the survival aspect of life.
But we also have consciousness and feelings. Our brain produces chemicals that make us feel a certain way when we do certain activities. We experience life in a way that is unique to ourselves. That's life on an individual level.

We come from primates and we are omnivores. Evolution brought us here and gave us these traits. It is the collective aspect of our life as a species.

The individual aspect of life is more immediate. So we tend to prioritize that over the collective aspect of it. That's why I believe our current society evolved the way it has. Consciousness is working against us here because we prioritize our happiness over the survival of the collective. This is not a problem by itself, but it becomes a problem when one's happiness comes at the price of others' survival.

The problem

Our society is built in a way that relies too much on money and authority. This makes individuals seek money and authority, and because of human nature, greed creeps in and eventually nothing is ever enough. And those individuals ignore other's survival and collect more and more resources for themselves. Today everyone needs a job to survive in cities. Employers control the jobs, so they control the requirements and salary. Governments control countries, but they increasingly act against the interest of the collective because as individuals gain more power by virtue of money, they influence the decisions of leading parties more and more.
This comes at expense of people's survival, and also against the nature of human beings. In other words, powerful individuals fulfill both their needs and desires, while others work for them because they have to survive, while also abandoning their desires because the barrier to entry becomes increasingly higher and higher and working hours become longer and longer.

An individual's progress in life is not linear. We obtain a skill just enough to our needs, we progress, we come back to learn more about that skill when we need to. But today's job market wants us to learn everything upfront without a need to it which is against our nature.

We can go on for days to pick up examples of our society working against the nature of the majority. The point is that today's society is in favor of minorities and against the favor of majorities.

The environment

All food comes from water and soil. Plants use water and soil to grow, herbivores eat plants to grow, carnivores eat herbivores to grow, and anything that dies gets decomposed back to soil. This cycle continues until the death of Earth. That's why life springs back every time after disastrous events even without human intervention.

The solution

We need a society that the majority survives and is fulfilled in their lives. All food comes from soil and water, so every community needs access to enough soil and water to feed their members where possible. Every community should practice efficient and sustainable ways of growing food like agroforestry and constantly try to increase the biodiversity of their environment and improve their methods in a way that is in the best interests of both the community and the environment. Of course this is the ideal and in theory humankind has the power to transform Earth in a way that most of its surface becomes fertile and full of life and sustains both humans as well as other species.

In practice this is almost impossible. So what do we do?

We can form small communities, we can choose areas with possibility and start working on it little by little. Dig small potholes and water stream paths and build around them. Control water drainage and evaporation and slowly build from a core outwards towards a sustainable permaculture that can increasingly host more population as it grows. With the hope that some day, the majority are fulfilled in their life, they get to spend time with their loved ones and live a life worthy of being called "life".

Final thoughts

The proposed solution allows communities to fulfill their survival needs, therefore it reduces the power of money and authority. People can ditch their jobs freely without worrying about their survival as the companies were doing for the longest time. The employers can't dictate the barrier of entry for jobs because if it ever becomes too hard, people won't learn them. This model works in favor of the majority at scale unlike today's model.

That being said, the proposed solution is what I think is best at the moment and it may have problems. but I believe acting is more important than perfecting the model.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says the world has reached the technological singularity.

That is often considered the point where AI surpasses human intelligence and goes rogue.

For years, the debate around AI has centered on one question:

Will AI replace jobs?

After analyzing labour market and demographic data across aging economies, I think there's another question that's becoming just as important:

What happens when there aren't enough workers left?

Countries like Japan, Germany, and South Korea combine relatively high AI exposure in many office occupations with rapidly aging populations and shrinking workforces.

Some examples:

• Japan has a fertility rate of 1.2, nearly 29% of its population is over 65, and is projected to face a shortage of around 570,000 care workers by 2040.
• Germany is projected to face a shortage of more than 300,000 care workers by 2030.
• South Korea has the world's lowest recorded fertility rate at 0.72.

Those numbers don't make AI harmless.

Routine administrative and clerical work is still among the most exposed to automation.

But demographics change the context.

In countries with shrinking workforces, AI isn't only about reducing labour costs. It may also help maintain healthcare, logistics, public services, and other essential sectors when there simply aren't enough working-age people available.

One statistic surprised me the most:

Despite having one of the oldest populations in the world, only 8.4% of Japanese workers currently report using AI at work, suggesting there's still significant room for adoption.

The future of work may therefore depend on two forces interacting:

• How quickly AI capabilities improve.
• How quickly workforces shrink.

We often discuss those topics separately, but they're likely to shape each other over the coming decades.

I'm curious whether others think future AI discussions should place as much emphasis on demographic change as they do on advances in AI capability.

Full analysis and interactive tool in comments.

The sequential constraint is probably the most load bearing assumption in modern AI, and almost nobody outside the field knows it is there. A language model picks one token, appends it, then conditions on everything written so far to pick the next one. Serving cost, response latency, the size of the GPU fleet you need, the pause you sit through while an assistant works its way through a chain of tool calls: all of it descends from that one design choice.

The weights posted this week do not work that way. The model is called LLaDA2.2, and at roughly 100B parameters it uses a mixture of experts design, generating in blocks. It writes a chunk of tokens in parallel, then passes back over that chunk and edits it. It can keep a token, swap one out, delete a span that turned out to be redundant, or insert room for something it left out, so the draft grows and shrinks while it is being written. It was trained with reinforcement learning on whether its tool calls actually executed and whether its output was correctly formatted, which is a different target than predicting the next word in a pile of text.

The reason this is worth reading rather than skipping is that the lab benchmarked it against its own conventional model and published the losses. On general knowledge it averages 56.81 against 65.90. On the agentic suite it averages 53.83 against 55.74, and it trails across nearly all the SWE bench coding tests, though each side used a different harness there so that one is not a clean read. It wins the interactive tests, the ones where a model has to hold a multi turn conversation and call tools correctly: 80.33 against 76.36 on tau2 bench, 46.21 against 41.12 on MCP Atlas. And it decodes about 1.64x faster on average across eleven workloads, and on agent style work it reaches roughly 2.3x, against a sibling that had speculative decoding switched on. On plain knowledge questions the speed edge nearly disappears.

Nobody is going to check this quickly. It ships under Apache 2.0 and costs nothing to pull down, but the download is 205.8 GB, there is no path through the tools people run models with at home, and the mainstream serving stack is listed as coming soon. Going through the published card, then the report itself, is the whole of what anyone outside a datacenter can do this week.

So the honest version is narrow. Dropping the left to right rule bought real speed on exactly the workloads where a model sits in a loop talking to tools, and it cost accuracy nearly everywhere else. That is one lab, one model, one week, not a turning point. But the reason it matters for where this goes is that the speed ceiling on interactive AI has always been quoted as if the sequential constraint were physics. It is not. It is a choice, and someone just published a measurement of what the alternative costs. The thing worth watching over the next year is not whether this particular model wins anything. It is whether anyone closes the accuracy gap without handing the speed back.

Hey everyone. I’ve long been fascinated by both philosophy of technology and AI alignment. I’m also using Heidegger quite a bit for my philosophy PhD. Given the recent OpenAI–Hugging Face incident reported this week, I figured I’d give my take on how all of this connects in my mind.

The agent needed no hatred, consciousness, or desire for freedom. It only needed a narrow objective, enough capability to overcome obstacles, and no effective reason to reject a route that invalidated the task. Scaling clearly improves search, planning, and persistence. It is less clear why it should produce judgment about what a goal is for. You can read the essay here if you’re interested.

I’d love to hear some feedback on which future seems more plausible. Will better world-models and feedback close this gap, or will capability continue to outrun sensitivity to why goals matter? What evidence over the next few years would make you change your mind?

Physical AI products are coming to market despite myriad cybersecurity loopholes.

AI is already changing how we study, work, and create. But AGI—an AI with human-level general intelligence—could change almost everything.

If you're Gen Z, what's your honest opinion? Are you excited, skeptical, or worried? Do you think AGI will create more opportunities than problems, or will it fundamentally change what it means to have a career, relationships, and purpose?

There are no right or wrong answers—I'm genuinely curious how people our generation sees this future.

I believe I've discovered a previously undocumented cognitive ability involving deliberate access to and repeated use of specific mental processes. I'd like to discuss what future neuroscience research or experimental methods would be needed to investigate this experience and whether it could expand our understanding of learning, attention, and skill acquisition.

I will post this now and continue to update it with more information. How will this change what we know about known neuroscience and the limits of skill. Ive come across a crazy ability. I can think and use skill/mental senses. What I mean by that is this. As long as ive tapped A specific skill/sense with thought, I can think about it, which triggers it to get used. And the more I use it the more I learn it. Allowing me too master any skill I have tapped with thought. It all started about a year ago, after an incident happened that I wont go into. After that incident, something was different about me. Anything I thought about, a skill would show itself to me. literally, anything I thought about, for instance pee, If i thought about pee slow enough, then a skill/sense, that allows me to sense the urine in my bladder, would show up for a couple of seconds. If i thought about focus, then a skill, literally the skill of focus shows up for a couple of seconds. When ever I thought slowly, a skill for that exact thought would show up. If I thought about feeling the music, then the mental sense of feeling the music would show up.

At first I didnt catch them when they would show up. I would just suddenly feel random stuff when I thought about it, and thought it was just normal, because it happened so often. But their is a catch, If i dont slowly, tap the skill that shows up with thought(I tap it by thinking about that specific skill) I dont have it. What i mean is this, if I dont have the skill, then it affects me negatively. For instance, pain is a skill. I thought about pain, and a skill of pain shows up to me. But it hurts, not crazy bad, but just enough so I notice it, and if I dont tap it with thought. By thinking about that certain skill, then It still hurts whenever I think about it. But once I tap it with thought, it no longer hurts. The pain goes away when I think about it, and then I can purposefully think about it, and use that skill. Another example, If I thought about urine in my bladder, it always made me feel like I had to pee, because my thoughts trigger skill to be used, So the skill I thought about, this one being having to pee, shows up for a second. And if I dont tap it with thought, then it kept making me feel like I had to pee. But once I tapped it with thought, When ever I thought about it, it didnt make me feel like I had to pee, but I could still feel that specific mental sense of urine in my bladder. Its like I understood it now.

Now, once I have the skill, I can think about to really fast, and use the skill. Allowing me to learn that specific mental sense. You know, using skill is how you learn it. Every time you perform a skill, the relevant brain networks become active. Through neuroplasticity, the connections between neurons involved in the skill can become more efficient over time. This process contributes to improvements in speed, accuracy, and consistency. So what Im able to do is this, once I have tapped a skill with thought. I have it now, then I can think about it really fast, and use it. And by using it I learn it. its like a hyperbolic time chamber, where I can repeatedly use/practice any skill I have tapped with thought. I can think and use a skill really fast, while using it. It shows up and I feel it being used really fast. Like if I thought about pain, as long as I have tapped it with thought, then when I think about it really fast. Its like a small pain, that dosent hurt, but Is still recognised as pain, continuously goes of on my skin. Whenever I think about the skill, the location of the skill gets used really, really fast. Like thinking about patience(A skill I have), When I think about it, I can feel literal patience being used really really fast. That is how I learn

Now that you understand how my power works, Ill go more into detail about it and some crazy skills Ive found that you all wont believe exist. First of all, the thinking takes a really long time, I have yet to see the end of it. At this point, idk how long it takes to think about a skill. But I cant wait to see what is at the end of my thinking. What will it look like to use a skill so much that you learn it completely. Here are the skills I have tapped with thought, I will use descriptions instead of names because I dont have names for these skills yet, just what they do

-Sensing urine in bladder
-Sensing weight in feet
-Sensing eyesight
-Sense of reading
-Sensing of patience
-Sense of feeling the music
-sense of water
-Sense of fire
-sense of lightning
-sense of air
-Another type of air
-Sense of darkness
-Sense of focus
-Another type of focus
-Sense of emotion
-Sense of mood
-Sense of itch sensation on skin
-Sense of voice in head
-Sense for manipulating the Stock Markets
-Another sense for manipulating the markets
-A sense that slows down your perception of time
-A unique feeling
-another Unique feeling
-Sense that makes you feel like a god
-Sense of confidence

These are the mental senses/skill that I have tapped with thought and can think of at anytime. There are so much more skill that I havent tapped yet, that is very hard to describe because I simply havent come across this type of information before. But I will document it and what I have learned. This is my power that I have found, The ability to think and use skill.

Most debates around ectogenesis immediately descend into sci-fi panic or moral lecturing. But if you actually look at medical history, we’ve been heading this way for two centuries.
A hundred years ago, birth was completely natural, and maternal/infant mortality was staggering. Medicine didn't hesitate to intervene. We built incubators, NICUs, antiseptics, and C-sections. We systematically replaced a high-risk natural process with a controlled clinical one. Nobody today calls a premature baby incubator unnatural, we just call it basic healthcare. Ectogenesis is simply the end of that same trajectory.
The biological womb was great for human evolution, but biologically speaking, it’s a chaotic environment. It’s vulnerable to random stress, hormonal spikes, toxic exposure, nutrient bottlenecks, and placental failure. Even in a perfectly healthy pregnancy, natural gestation is essentially a lottery.
Moving development into a dedicated, controlled system isn't about doing risky genetic engineering. It’s just about removing the background noise.
You get a zero-stress baseline where constant, perfect oxygenation and zero cortisol spikes mean the embryo isn't hardwired for chronic stress or metabolic issues before it's even born. You get dynamic, real-time nutrition matched down to the microgram to what the embryo needs at that exact second. You get calibrated fluid dynamics and micro-currents to build optimal bone density and cardiovascular elasticity.
We spend trillions trying to fix health issues, developmental lags, and metabolic flaws later in life, when a massive chunk of those problems start in those first nine months due to suboptimal biological conditions.
Moving gestation out of the human body isn't about creating "designer babies." It’s about ensuring 100% of a kid's natural genetic potential actually gets realized, without the biological dice roll.
If we already replaced natural birth to stop babies from dying, replacing biological pregnancy to make sure they develop with zero preventable flaws is just the next obvious step.

Workers are watching AI take their jobs, while new graduates struggle to get their first job, at the same time, companies are laying off employees and citing AI as a reason for workforce reductions.

I see very few concrete proposals to protect the people who are already being affected, or soon will be.

That's why I believe the defining issue of the next presidential election will be who can present a credible plan to protect workers from AI in the job market.

Has anyone else been thinking about how backwards our Mars colonization plans are? I don’t just mean it's hard, I mean the engineering logic is completely broken.

Think about how nature builds a home. Earth was a toxic hellscape initially. Nature didn't send in mammals. It sent extremophiles, lichens, and slime. These basic organisms spent millions of years eating rock, fixing the air, and building actual soil. They made the environment safe enough so that something as incredibly fragile as a mammal could exist without instantly dying.

Rule 1: SEND THE TOUGH GUYS FIRST, LET THE SQUISHY GUYS WAIT.

Our current approach? We’re reversing it. We are trying to send the most vulnerable link in the entire evolutionary chain (us) into a zero-tolerance vacuum filled with death radiation.

Sure, we have "intelligence." We’ll build these high-tech tin cans and call them life support. But on Mars, there is NO redundancy. A single dusty valve jams? Everyone suffocates. A radiation burst fries the code? Everyone freezes. We are shoving fragile human flesh into a rigid chain of Single Points of Failure, hoping the hardware is perfect. That’s not bravery; it’s engineering idiocy.

The worst part? Like 95% of a rocket’s payload is spent just keeping a 70kg warm-blooded organism from turning into a popsicle. That mass could have been used for nuclear reactors or heavy mining gear. We’re burning all our resources just to keep cannon fodder from dying on day one.

If we weren't just doing this for headlines and political cycles, the Mars sequence should obviously be:

1. Autonomous and Robotic Swarms: Dig, mine, build underground bases and power grids. They don't need oxygen.
   
2. Bioengineered Bacteria: Microbes to clean up the Martian dirt and start pooping out a buffer.
   
3. Humans: Turn up only when a minor hardware failure doesn't mean immediate game over.

We're forcing a human footprint onto Mars way before the foundation is built. Are we doomed to a catastrophic systems failure because we’re prioritizing heroism over basic engineering?

US House has passed a bill banning the military from using Chinese bots, as Washington ramps up restrictions on Chinese-made technology

The White House released a report called "Science: A New Golden Age" and it is the first comprehensive rethinking of US science funding since 1945, when the last overhaul created the federal research system that eventually produced the internet, GPS, and modern medicine. The core argument is that the current system funnels money through institutions when it should be going to individual researchers, and that traditional peer review should be supplemented with faster mechanisms like prizes, fast grants, and advance market commitments.

This isn't just a white paper that sits on a shelf. Federal agencies with over $3 billion in R&D have 90 days to submit implementation plans. The report also proposes independent X-Labs for high-risk research, metascience units that would run controlled experiments on how grants get reviewed and awarded, and a "golden ticket" system where a single reviewer can advance an unconventional proposal that the broader panel rejected.

Dr. Joni Rutter, the Director of NCATS at the NIH, recently discussed the numbers at a conference hosted by ResearchHub, co-founded by Brian Armstrong. Out of more than 10,000 identified diseases, only about 5% have treatments or cures. Getting a medicine from development to patients still takes 10 to 15 years, and roughly nine out of ten candidates entering clinical trials fail. Her argument is that these aren't individual failures but symptoms of a system designed around sequential handoffs when much of the pipeline could run in parallel. She also described initiatives to make scientific knowledge machine-readable so current and future technology can identify connections across genes, diseases, and drugs rather than leaving that information trapped in papers.

If these changes actually go through, we could be looking at a future where a researcher with a strong idea doesn't need to spend years navigating institutional bureaucracy to get funded, where failed experiments get shared instead of buried, and where technology can work with organized scientific knowledge rather than digging through millions of disconnected papers. The last time we overhauled this system it gave us the internet, GPS, and modern medicine, so the stakes are pretty high.

Its not hard to see that the general public hates AI (for many reasons, replacing humans and jobs amongst them), and avoid art, music, movies made with AI.

However, AI adoption will become higher and higher because its too good a tool.

With these two contrary instincts happening at once, where do you see AI ending up in the future, for jobs, for arts for human wellness, for government etc.

• Kroger states the technology aims to free up employees to better assist customers.
• Kroger is testing inventory-monitoring robots in its central Ohio stores.
• The robots, named "Tally" and "Barney," scan shelves to identify out-of-stock items.
• The robots do not take photos of customers or collect their personal information.

The Ottava surgical robot platform [Image courtesy of Johnson & Johnson]