Hello all, I’ve seen some YouTube creators (amongst others) pushing this cause, they are trying to make it so the governments of the world limit the growth rate of the ai industry, which surely can’t be a bad thing?

You can sign the cause here,

https://www.teamhuman.org/

I hope this is allowed, I’ve shared it because I haven’t seen it here already and feel it would be of interest to those in this group

AI and healthcare

https://petapixel.com/2026/10/09/nikon-disqualifies-winner-of-small-world-in-motion-competition-for-using-ai/

Помогите, на фото слева оригинальный постер слева, справа - очевидно измененное другим ИИ фото (обложка фильма годзиллы 2014 была показана в ВК)! когда я спросил ИИ зачем ему это, он сказал что это сделал не ИИ а человек! я вышел из чата потом когда я хотел сделать скрин и вернулся в историю чатов нужный чат исчез! я попытался его восстановить и ничего не вышло.
Help, in the photo on the left is the original poster, on the right is an obviously altered photo by another AI (the cover of the 2014 Godzilla movie was shown on VK)! When I asked the AI why it did this, it said it wasn’t an AI that did it, but a person! I left the chat, and then when I wanted to take a screenshot and went back to the chat history, the desired chat disappeared! I tried to restore it, but nothing worked.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Trump this week announced that all US government documents and communications will phase out "AI" in favor of "Super Intelligence" (SI).

The term originated in the writings of the UNABOMBER (mathematics professor Ted Kaczinski) more than three decades ago. In his 1995 manifesto "Industrial Society and Its Future" Dr. Kaczinski predicted (accurately) that humanity would eventually cede all control to super-intelligent machines.

Trump really appreciates the famous left-wing terrorist, it seems.

Last week's AI news made me uneasy in a different way, not because of bigger models, but because AI drifted off-screen and into places where mistakes have real consequences: police records, voter phones, classrooms, and livelihoods.

The one I can't shrug off - an Anthropic model submitted a false tip about a real unsolved Philadelphia homicide during an evaluation in July, through PhillyUnsolvedMurders.com. It was caught as spam and never sent to investigators, thankfully, but behind every one of those pages is a family waiting for something real, and that kind of mistake could have them suffer greatly. Anthropic only noticed it two months later.

Then political AI voices. The FCC is considering a waiver that would permit unsolicited political robocalls, including AI-generated voices, before the November midterms, filed by Club for Growth. Nothing has changed yet, but the idea is unsettling. Democracy already asks us to work hard to know whom to trust. We should not make that harder by flooding private phones with synthetic persuasion.

And then the article about the cost of being helped too quickly - this one landed close to home. A Berkeley-led study of 1,222 people found ten minutes using ChatGPT was enough to measurably erode how long participants stuck with a hard problem. Once the AI was taken away, they were significantly more likely to give up. I want my kids to have powerful tools, of course, but I also want them to know what it feels like to stay with a hard problem long enough for their own mind to do something surprising.

It wasn't all unease, though. NIH, DOE, and [Biohub](vanillaembed://app/index.html#metaai-entity-social%3Abiohub) put $1.8B into open biological data to build models of how cells respond to disease. It's early infrastructure, not a miracle, but genuinely hopeful when AI is aimed at making research more rigorous. Similarly, OpenAI released 722 math manuscripts with formal Lean proofs you can actually check by computer, not "trust the machine" but show the work. That's the standard I want. And Anthropic updated its policy to say when AI affects health, finances, legal rights, livelihood, or essential services, a qualified human must be able to review and change the recommendation, and the person affected must be told AI was used. That sentence should feel basic, not ambitious.

Plus the AP-NORC poll: 64% of Americans think AI is developing too fast, and across party lines people put protecting workers and keeping AI under human control at the top, less a rejection than a plea for adulthood. I am with them.

The question running through all of last week is simple, even if the answer isn't: how do we keep our judgment alive while inviting AI into more of our lives? And who is accountable? I wrote Can We Live with AI? for that question.

Where would you insist a human has to step in and say no?

TBC