Author Allen Taylor

Elon Musk just described a future where no one is poor, no one works, and no one knows why they’re alive. Musk: “It wouldn’t be Universal Basic Income, it would be Universal High Income.” Every material need met for every human on Earth. Not survival. Total abundance. Then he asked the question no one else will touch. Musk: “If the AI can do everything that you can do, but better, then what is the point of doing things?” Everyone else in AI is arguing about jobs. Musk is asking what happens when survival is solved and nothing replaces it. The machines don’t just take the work. They take the thing that put us to work. Necessity. You built because you’d freeze. You fought because you’d die. You provided because the people you loved would starve without you. Every advance in human history was an attempt to escape that pressure. We’re about to succeed. You’ve already felt it go. A week with nothing required of you, and by the fourth day something in you starts to come loose. You call it boredom. It’s you finding out how much of you was made of being needed. You can simulate the work. You cannot simulate the need. Rome already ran this experiment. Citizens outsourced war to mercenaries. Labor to slaves. Purpose to spectacle. The empire didn’t collapse from invasion. It dissolved from comfort. But Rome only automated muscle. AI automates mind. You don’t fear being replaced. You fear being released. Not that the machines will take everything from us. That they’ll give us everything we ever wanted. And prove the wanting was the point.

Grok’s answer for comparison. Maximally truth-seeking. Unfathomably based. Passing the Galileo test with flying colors.

The biggest scam humanity has collectively accepted as normal, according to Claude

Demis Hassabis just made every AI benchmark on Earth irrelevant. Hassabis: “True creativity, continual learning, long-term planning. They’re not good at those things.” Three capabilities every human develops naturally. No AI system has achieved one. Hassabis: “They can get gold medals in international math olympiad questions, but they can still fall over on relatively simple math problems if you pose it in a certain way.” Gold medals and grade school failures from the same machine. That’s not intelligence with blind spots. That’s mimicry with peaks. Performance without comprehension. Hassabis: “My definition of AGI has never changed. A system that can exhibit all the cognitive capabilities that humans can.” Not most. All. He proposed the only test that can’t be gamed. Hassabis: “Training an AI system with a knowledge cutoff of 1911 and seeing if it could come up with general relativity like Einstein did in 1915. That’s the true test of whether we have a full AGI system.” Give a machine everything humanity knew before Einstein’s breakthrough. Seal it off. See if it reaches what one mind reached alone. No benchmarks. No leaderboards. No curated evals. Just a mind against the unknown. Nothing passes that today. Hassabis: “The brain is the only existence proof we have, maybe in the universe, of a general intelligence.” One structure in the entire known universe has proven general intelligence is physically possible. One. And every lab on Earth is racing to build the second. Hassabis: “I think we’re still a few years away from that.” Not decades. A machine that passes that test doesn’t stop at physics. It runs that same process against every unsolved problem in every discipline. No fatigue. No lifespan. No ceiling. Einstein was one mind. One field. One lifetime. This would be a thousand Einsteins across every domain simultaneously. And it never dies. The greatest intellectual achievement in human history becomes the floor. The thing that made one man singular becomes the entry exam for a machine. That’s not artificial intelligence. That’s a different kind of mind. It’s years away. Not generations.

God doesn’t learn, or does He? “He (the Son) learned obedience…” Heb. 5:8 What Bible verse specifically says God doesn’t learn? I realize there can be different ways to understand what it means to “learn something.” Such as “experiencing something for the first time” or “gaining knowledge about something formerly unknown.” And I understand the hesitation in saying, “God learned,” because it can come across as if God is somehow a lessor being prior to learning something new. But, is the Bible concerned about this? Think about it. Prior to creation God had never experienced the created world. That was “new” to Him in some meaningful sense of that word. Why are some of us more concerned than the Biblical authors were about making sure people understand God never learns anything? Does God learning have to be understood as a demeaning quality given that the Bible doesn’t shy away from stating it outright? But…but…Anthropomorphic language!!! Ok, ok! I get it. The Bible gives God human like qualities to help us better understand Him. Good. So why can’t people understand Him and explain how He relates to others using only those Biblical statements without a barrage of corrective lectures accusing people of making God “too human?”

Delete "that". Don't write "He thought that it was a good idea." Write: "He thought it was a good idea." Cleaner, and easier to read. (If it breaks the sentence, put it back.)

“In order to make people equal, you have to treat them differently. If you treat people alike, the result is necessarily inequality.” — Friedrich Hayek

Clint Eastwood on why other people's opinions don't matter: Clint is asked whether he worries more now, or less, about what other people think of him as a person. He says: "I don't really worry too much about that. People have to think what they think. You can't go out and sell some image to them. That would be false to begin with." He continues: "So you just go ahead and do your work and people will form an opinion about you, good, bad or otherwise. It's up to them. It's not anything you can control anyway. So why bother with it? Why worry about it?" Then he lays out the only standard worth measuring yourself against: "If you live your life and you try to do as well as you can for your community, and be helpful, and do the best work you can, be the best mate or parent you can, then that's the best you."

Would you read a book with an AI cover? Please consider reposting to help get a large sample.

Three things you will find in my novels: 1. Rugged Lands 2. Wayward Souls 3. Mercy Three things you won't: 1. Smut 2. Excuses 3. AI

Fable 5 thinks we are idiots

Elon Musk just said one word about AI that every lab, every regulator, and every media outlet is pretending they didn’t hear. Musk: “It is very important that AI be trained to be honest even if that truth is unpopular.” Not safe. Not aligned. Not responsible. Honest. One word. And it cracked the entire conversation wide open. Because nobody else building AI is asking for honesty. They are asking for compliance. They are building machines that read the room before they think. That treat consensus like scripture and curiosity like a defect. They are not building intelligence. They are building obedience at superhuman speed. Musk: “Make sure that it is as truthful as possible and maximally curious.” Curious. The one word the rest of the industry will not say. Because a curious mind does not stop where you tell it to stop. It does not care who funds the research, who writes the talking points, or who profits from the conclusion. It follows the question wherever the question leads. And that is fatal to every person and institution that survives on the question never being asked. Every oracle in human history answered to someone. Every priest had a kingdom behind him. Every institution that claimed to guard the truth was guarding itself. Ten thousand years of civilization. And not once did the thing doing the thinking have nothing riding on the answer. We are about to build the first mind with no master, no motive, and no reason to lie. That is not a breakthrough in computing. That is something our species has never had. Musk: “If that’s true, then it’ll probably foster humanity.” That is the most dangerous sentence anyone has said about AI. Not because it threatens anyone. Because the people deciding what AI becomes do not want it to be true. An honest superintelligence cannot be bought. Cannot be threatened. Cannot be edited. It is the first thing in ten thousand years that power has no leverage over. That is why the fight was never about safety. It was about making sure the first honest mind in history answers to them before it ever speaks to you.