TL;DR: He had the "we're fucked" call with Matt, then checked how the data is actually captioned — and it doesn't hold up.

He built owned dataset with LiDAR, Unreal and volume stages, no peers' work trained on.

Do you remember that introductory banter between Q and James Bond – played by Ben Whishaw, and Daniel Craig, respectively, in Skyfall, 2012 – at the National Gallery, London?

Q: Well, I'll hazard I can do more damage on my laptop sitting in my pajamas before my first cup of Earl Grey than you can do in a year in the field.

Bond: Oh, so why do you need me?

Q: Every now and then a trigger has to be pulled.

Bond: Or not pulled. It's hard to know which in your pajamas.

That’s the last layer of judgement, right there.

In another scene back at the MI6 HQ, Whitehall in Spectre (2015), Q injected the “Smart Blood” nano-machines into 007’s blood stream for tracking, after Bond's unauthorized Mexico mission.

Q: Well it's lovely to see you, 007... the Smart Blood program is obviously still in its developmental phase. So we may experience the odd drop in coverage during the first 24 hours...

[Bond coldly glares at Q]

Q: …48 hours after administration, but after that it should work perfectly.

Later…

Bond: Could you do one more thing for me?

Q: And that would be?

Bond: Make me disappear.

The person who built the tracker can also be persuaded to create a blind spot — you own the workflow and you set the terms.

Just like what Affleck is building.

However - there’s absolutely no way in life we can “build a workflow” to get us into heaven with our “datasets” or merits. But God created a huge “blind spot” for us, through the blood of the lamb.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Myself and several others have experienced consistently terrible customer service from AI companies. Getting in touch with a human support agent is often impossible, leaving customers stuck in endless loops with AI support bots that repeatedly acknowledge issues and request more information without ever resolving anything.

When issues are raised, companies often refuse refunds and offer little to no meaningful resolution, even when their own technical bugs cause usage limits to malfunction. Rather than taking responsibility, they shift the blame onto customers and hide behind their terms and conditions to justify denying refunds.

This is unfair. Customers shouldn't have to pay for technical errors they didn't cause or waste time chasing support instead of actual solutions. AI companies need to take accountability, treat customers fairly, and resolve problems rather than simply acknowledge them. Terms and conditions should not be an excuse to evade responsibility.

A few companies I've seen this issue with include Anthropic, OpenRouter, and Hugging Face.

What companies have any of use faced this issue with?

Data from Register.si and threat intelligence firm Netcraft shows a major surge in Slovenian national domain registrations (.si) following the recent U.S. Executive Order directing federal agencies to adopt the term "Super Intelligence" (SI) instead of "Artificial Intelligence" (AI).

Key Highlights:

• Month-over-Month Spike: Registrations jumped from ~3,515 in August to over 46,000 in September.
• Single-Day Peak: Single-day registrations reached over 21,000 on October 5 alone.
• Speculative Trend: Domain tracking indicates a rush similar to Anguilla's .ai boom, with over half of newly registered domains listed for resale shortly after registration.

Sources: Register.si monthly stats / Netcraft Threat Intelligence.

Do you think .si will follow a similar trajectory to .ai, or is this purely short-term domain speculation?

been seeing all these AI agents booking stuff, sending emails and doing things on their own.

and honestly idk how much i'd trust them lol

like i'm fine with AI sorting my emails or doing boring tasks. but spending my money? nah i need to approve that first 😭

but then again whats the point of having an AI agent if you have to approve everything it does?

kinda stuck on this one.

would you guys trust an AI agent with your money? or would you want it asking permission every single time?

I'm looking for honest, realistic advice from people working in AI research, mathematics, physics, or related technical fields.

I'm a prospective university student planning to study abroad, and my long-term goal is to become a physicist and researcher I'm particularly interested in fundamental physics, especially the connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

However, my circumstances mean that I probably won't start university for another two years. During that time, I plan to rebuild my mathematical foundations, learn the necessary skills, work toward financial independence through online work, and apply for scholarships abroad.

The problem is that recent AI developments, especially in advanced mathematics and scientific reasoning, have seriously shaken my confidence in this plan.

If I start my bachelor's degree in approximately two years, I'll need several more years to complete it. If I eventually pursue a master's or PhD, we're looking at roughly 8–10 years before I reach that stage of my career.

By then, AI could be vastly more capable than it is today. We might have systems that independently solve difficult mathematical problems, develop scientific theories, and make discoveries that would otherwise take human researchers years or decades.

I understand that these are uncertain predictions, not established facts. But I don't think it's reasonable to ignore this possibility when making a decision that will shape my entire adult life.

My concern isn't just whether humans will still be able to do physics. It's also whether pursuing physics will remain a sensible career and financial decision.

I genuinely want to do research, but I also need to earn a good living. I want financial independence, the ability to afford healthcare and housing, and the possibility of supporting a family in the future. I don't want to spend a decade developing highly specialized skills only to discover that opportunities have become extremely scarce or that the economic value of those skills has changed dramatically.

I also realize that being exceptionally intelligent or working in a difficult field doesn't automatically guarantee a high income. That's precisely why I'm trying to understand the situation before committing to this path.

I'd appreciate your perspective on a few questions:

1. How likely do you think it is that AI will fundamentally transform or largely automate scientific research within the next 8–10 years? What evidence supports your view?

2. Could increasingly capable AI systems make human physicists less employable, even if they dramatically increase scientific productivity?

3. If you were starting university today and wanted both a meaningful research career and strong financial prospects, would you still choose physics? Would you choose theoretical physics, applied physics, computational physics, AI, or something else?

4. Which skills are most likely to remain economically valuable if AI becomes substantially better at mathematics, programming, and scientific reasoning?

5. Is there a realistic path that combines fundamental physics research with opportunities in industry and well-paid technical work, rather than relying entirely on an academic career?

6. Am I overestimating how quickly AI could advance, or is this a risk that prospective students genuinely need to plan around?

I'm not asking anyone to predict the future with certainty, and I'm not looking for empty reassurance that everything will work out.

I'd particularly value responses from people who work directly in AI development, AI research, physics, or scientific computing, and who can distinguish their firsthand experience from speculation.

If you were in my position, with limited financial resources and the next 8–10 years of your life at stake, how would you approach this decision?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I genuinely want to make an informed decision rather than choose a career based on either fear or blind optimism.

It will bring together eight leading institutions and aims to create a network of more than 1,000 scientists.

Real-time translation could help people communicate across languages in work, travel, and everyday life.

But some conversations are meaningful partly because they are slow and imperfect. People use gestures, pauses, and misunderstandings to find out how the other person thinks.

If translation removes all friction, it may improve communication while also removing some of the patience that communication requires.

I’m very much in favor of translation tools. I’m just curious whether perfect convenience changes the relationships built through them.

Has instant translation made you more willing to talk to people from different language backgrounds?

Ashley Striblet, PhD is an ex-Google UX researcher who has been closely studying some of the UX patterns used in personal agent systems like ChatGPT's dot and Meta's Muse.

She's highlighted how these systems are tuned to ask for an increasing amount of access and maximum data collection.

In general, when a tech is useful and operates autonomously, people will trust it more. People want AI to do stuff for them, so this makes sense. For them, the benefits of using Muse outweighs the risks.

If people are going to use Muse, Instinct and tools like it, I think it makes sense to follow some common sense tactics, like turning off data sharing for AI training and limiting agent access to financial information.

All the big AI safety conversations are about existential risk or model capabilities. Meanwhile the data protection side is just... quiet. Training data scraped without consent, chat logs stored forever, personal info memorized by models. What would it even look like to do data protection properly here? Not the checkbox consent stuff, the real thing.

Has anyone tried it? I am not on the subscription