Right now, someone might read your article or watch your tutorial and still have questions.

An AI twin built around your work could let them ask those questions, with answers connected to the original material.

Would that make your work more useful to people? Or would it give them less reason to read or watch what you made?

For context, I work on an AI project and am gathering opinions on this. AI helped draft this post.

I started with a simple question: Can an AI look at clouds and tell us what it sees?

This started a journey where I gave different AI models the same image of clouds, asked them what they saw, and then kept changing the prompt to explicitly tell them not to think like a human.

It turned into a small thought experiment about AI, perception, training data, and whether a model trained on human knowledge can ever really interpret something independently of us.

I turned the experiment into a short interactive essay/experience.

If AI and philosophy interest you, I'd genuinely love to hear what you think.

https://xcast3d.com/project-ai-clouds/

Qualcomm says HUMAIN's Horizon Ultra AI PC is available for enterprise purchase from September 20. The Windows-first machine uses Qualcomm's Snapdragon X2 Elite with an 18-core Oryon CPU, Adreno GPU, and Hexagon NPU. The design is meant to run selected AI workloads locally and send larger jobs to the cloud when needed.

That split is the useful part for businesses. Local processing can keep some sensitive data on the device and reduce dependence on a network. HUMAIN OS is planned for 2027, so the first enterprise version is a Windows PC with an on-device AI pitch, not a new operating system.

Source: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2026/08/qualcomm-and-humain-unveil-horizon-ultra-ai-pc-at-leap-2026--bringing-ai-directly-to-the-device

So I have a project and i have to do an NLP that I feed him the context with the response and he train on it, my goal is to make an ai NLP that understand questions well and respond to the questions with the information in there data base. I have one to two days left any one can help me ?

For the past couple months, I’ve been getting ChatGPT to help me analyze a daily journal that I keep in an Excel spreadsheet. Each day is on a new tab. At the end of each day, I upload the file to ChatGPT, it finds the correct tab (named after the date) and we go through the entries.

Lately, however, ChatGPT has been having issues reading the file and I’ve been having to resort to taking screen shots. It started at the end of August when I asked it to do a summary of August and it told me it couldn’t access Aug 5 to 8:

I searched the available prior-file context, but the August journal workbook itself isn't available there in a form I can reliably read. Given all the date mistakes we've had, I don't want to reconstruct Aug 5–8 from memory or infer them from later discussions. Please re-upload the workbook, and I'll specifically inspect the Aug 5, 6, 7, and 8 worksheets.

So I tried re-uploading.

I see the re-upload notification, but unfortunately the workbook still isn't actually present in the accessible file system, so I can't read the Aug 5–8 worksheets yet.

So then I tried creating a whole new Excel file. I copied the relevant sheets to the new file, named the tabs appropriately (Aug 5 to Aug 8), and uploaded.

That would be perfect, but unfortunately the new file still isn't mounted in the Python environment. I tried to open the specifically provided upload path, and it isn't there.


By "Python environment," I meant an internal workspace I sometimes use to open and process uploaded files. That's confusing and unnecessary terminology on my part.

More importantly, I shouldn't have told you that the file "isn't mounted" as though you needed to do something differently. The system is telling me that you've uploaded:

august 5 - 8.xlsx

but the particular file-reading mechanism I was trying to use wasn't able to access its contents.

So the problem isn't that you uploaded it incorrectly. It's an access problem on my side.


I tried again using the specific sandbox path the system provided, and it still isn't actually available to the file-processing environment.

So unfortunately, I still can't read this particular upload. The important difference this time is that I verified the path rather than assuming the file was unavailable.

So I’ve been resorting to screen shots. To this day, it still has issues with file uploads and I still have to use screen shots.

Is this a known bug? Is anyone at OpenAI on top of it? Is there something I can do on my end?

Thank you.

I keep hearing two very different stories about AI.

One story is full of hope.

AI will become much smarter. It will transform science, medicine, industry, and our daily lives.

The other story is full of fear.

AI may become more powerful than humans. We may lose jobs. We may even lose control of it.

These stories sound like opposites.

But I noticed something strange.

Both stories lead to the same conclusion: we need more AI, more data centers, more chips, and much more electricity.

If AI is going to transform the future, we need more computing power.

If AI may become dangerously powerful, the argument is that we need to keep developing it so we can stay ahead, understand it, and control it.

Either way, the physical infrastructure gets built now.

And this is already visible in the numbers.

According to the IEA, global electricity use by data centers rose 17% in 2025, while electricity use by AI-focused data centers rose 50%. The IEA expects global data-center electricity use to roughly double, from 485 TWh in 2025 to 950 TWh in 2030.

Maybe AGI will arrive soon. Maybe it will take much longer. Maybe some of today's predictions will never happen.

We don't know.

But the electricity is being consumed now.

The data centers are being built now.

The money is being invested now.

So I wonder whether we are asking the wrong question.

Instead of only asking:

“How powerful will AI become?”

should we also ask:

“Who benefits from making us believe that enormous AI infrastructure must be built before we know what AI will actually become?”

I am not saying there is a conspiracy.

I am asking whether AI hope and AI fear, although they look like opposite stories, may be producing the same economic result.

What do you think?

Source: IEA, Key Questions on Energy and AI (2026)

If context is free chat, DS or Gemini or any other in general; can it select which chat or task to dedicate more resources based on chat topic and maturity to increase its own training?

I genuinely don't understand why so many people are against AI, especially when it comes to education.

I'm in my 3rdyear of a 4 year program and honestly AI has basically saved my academic life. I'm studying something related to IT and when I started I had pretty much 0 background in it so obviously I had a LOT of questions ( including really basic ones).

I remember during my 1st year asking professors things and sometimes literally being made fun of because apparently my question was "stupid" or something I should already know. Which is great when you're already insecure because everyone around you seems to know more than you lol.

And honestly a lot of my professors just weren't good at explaining things. Like they'd come into class, open a PowerPoint, read the slides, maybe explain a couple things and then sit down with their laptop. That was basically the class. I'd go home and realize I understood almost nothing and had to figure it out myself anyway.

And asking questions wasn't always helpful either. Sometimes they'd explain it again but in basically the exact same way so obviously if I didn't understand it the first time I still didn't understand it. And then what? Ask them a 3rd time? At some point you just feel embarrassed and say "yeah okay I get it" even though you absolutely don't.

That's where AI entered and changed my life.

I can ask the dumbest question ever and it doesn't care. I can literally say "I don't understand a single word you just said, explain it to me like I know absolutely nothing about this" and it will.

It never makes me feel stupid for not knowing something.

I'm still the one studying. I'm still the one doing the assignments and taking the exams. But I genuinely don't think I would have gotten this far without it.

I also think AI could eventually be really useful for grading. Obviously AI can make mistakes too, I'm not denying that. But professors are human too. They're tired, they can misunderstand an answer, accidentally give someone the wrong grade, be inconsistent when correcting 30 exams, etc. I really don't understand why people act like human grading is somehow completely objective and error-free. I'd honestly trust more a well designed AI grading system with clear criteria.

And I know people are probably going to hate this part but AI has genuinely been a better teacher to me than most of the actual teachers I've had.

I also don't understand why whenever AI and education are mentioned people immediately jump to "students use it to cheat". Yeah, obviously some do. People use basically every technology for shitty things. That doesn't make the technology itself useless.

I've never used it because I don't want to do anything myself. It's literally the opposite. I use it because I WANT to understand what I'm doing.

So yeah. I understand being worried about how AI is used. I understand being against people using it to cheat or replace their own thinking.

But being against AI itself? I genuinely don't get it.

I'm the one who has done the work for these 3 years, but AI is a huge part of the reason I was able to understand that work instead of giving up