GISELX

Sampled from the 'what was', to release into the 'what is'; for the ones who will get to see 'what will be'. Handheld, metered with my eye + the rule of F/22. On my first camera a Fuji 6x7 Rangefinder, Kodak 400 Film. Captured in the Carrie Brown Bajnotti Memorial Fountain, Providence Rhode Island, 2004. OPEN EDITION 30days, 333xtz, Open Edition. 50% proceeds to @TheGivingBlock @projecthopeorg

@JenPanepinto ❤️‍🔥😍

@Issybeatz_ @riverjordan19 So you havent really seen what it can do

AI is so popular because it gives uncreative people the illusion that they are creative. It lets them skip right to the part where they get validation. It’s not only parasitic, but extremely narcissistic.

@PingStruggles 😆

Windows 12 better not break the cycle just because it’s vibe coded

1 shift

Painting life through words knowing they always morph in translation; last thing needed is fabricated hallucination.

Drift hunting

It's 1965, HOW was this accomplished then?!?!? I've had this "Mona" in my possession for nearly 50 years and I still marvel at the technological feat and leap HP Peterson achieved. (This is her left eye) digitalmonalisa.com

“You’ve Got Mail.” 📬 Founded in 1985 as Quantum Computer Services & renamed America Online in 1991, AOL was synonymous with online services. 🌐 In the ’90s, AOL flooded mailboxes with millions of free trial CDs 💿, introducing an entire generation to email, chat rooms, instant messaging, and the web itself. Though the dial up era is long gone, AOL persists today as a digital media brand. Browse decades of web history with @WaybackMachine ➡️ web.archive.org @AOL #DigitalHistory #InternetHistory #90sNostalgia

Code patterns 🎨🐍 #touchdesigner

Do not start with fundamentals. This is an awful approach to learning. Start with so-called "advanced" topics and ask questions until every term/concept is understood. This is the correct, rigorous, scientific way to learn, because the advanced topics are embedded in larger, more convoluted, more abstracted constructs. This embedding is what gives the individual pieces their *meaning*. Foundational studies have removed this embedding, and present only the isolated, sterile pieces. They have no meaning. They have no context. The notion that students will piece together fundamentals into some eventual synthesis down the road is absolutely incorrect. It is literally information-theoretically obtuse. Children don't learn language using pieces. They mumble *fully*. They are never not fully embracing the complexity. It is the juxtaposition between their naive attempts and the full picture that imbues their mind with learning. Prerequisites are the dumbest approach to learning. It is utterly indefensible using any scientific argument. The basics-to-advanced directionality is diametrically opposed to how information is encoded, comprehended and used. Prerequisites are why most computer scientists and whiteboard exam-passers can't make software themselves; they can only be cogs in a company. It's why a Princeton math PhD can write the update rule for gradient descent but can't draw the actual process with circles and lines on a damn chalkboard (true story). Idiot level stuff because their learning was all basics to advanced. They never defined terms and concepts in an embedded fashion. It was all disconnected. Meaningless muscle memory with no understanding. It does not work both ways. Only pieces that are seen inside the bigger picture are understood. Do not start with fundamentals.

@sean_a_mcclure @Ric_RTP Hopefully Claude gets a reality check to lower costs to the consumers.

No. Stop telling some people what they want to hear for clicks. Microsoft did not "ban employees from using AI" It is a much narrower and more strategic decision. They decided to reduce Claude Code licenses and push teams toward their own tooling, especially GitHub Copilot CLI....obviously. Use Microsoft’s in-house AI stack instead of paying for large-scale external Claude subscriptions. Your post is for idiots. People who cannot think for themselves see this as a collapse of AI adoption overall, and implying Microsoft concluded AI was economically useless. Token-priced coding agents at massive enterprise scale can become extremely expensive. Yes. So say that. Nonsense accounts speaking simple language to simple folk makes this platform annoying.

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

@Jediwolf @EddieLee21_ @kimasendorf @serc1n @nicedayJules This is whats happening- every second every day, so much to go.

If I were an artist who understood what @kimasendorf @serc1n @nicedayJules are building - I’d be so inspired I couldn’t sleep! Pay attention to the brilliant minds 🙏

Local Root Compute

@Pirat_Nation Seeing a Japanese manga artist lose access to years of work over AI scanning on Google Drive should make more people rethink how much private data sits under one Google account

@Pirat_Nation This is why you cannot trust big tech, do not use cloud services. Buy a HDD (they work best for long term offline storage) and store your stuff locally.

@Pirat_Nation Moral of the story, don't trust google.

A Japanese manga artist lost his entire Google account forever after he uploaded private files from an old comic he drew to Google Drive. Google’s AI checked the files and flagged them as not allowed. He asked Google to review it again, but they rejected his appeal and banned the account immediately. He can no longer access years of his private drawings and lost access to many websites and services that used his Google login. The artist said this is very embarrassing and causes him a lot of trouble. He warned that it might not happen to people who always follow every rule, but others should be careful. So Google is scanning files that people upload to its cloud storage even if they are supposed to be private. I wonder how long they have been doing this.

Ojas audio designed by Devon Turnbull.