Oliver Morina

What is intresting is that we have “weak output bandwith”, meaning what we can do and produce is far less capable than our visual bandwith. And I did agree with Elon Musk on this, and that Neurolink will solve this issue. “And my hope it does, becuase it can give more opportunities to more people, if it really works”. But I do disagree with it, maybe thier is a reason for this limited bandwith? What if? The limiting in bandwith for output, is solely reliant upon our visual input being so high? Because if the visual input is so high, the output mechanism can function as a filtering system, or an active filtering mechanism. Even if its weak and have its limits, it may serve this function to protect us from overload. Only reason I thought about this, is because everytime we are overloaded, we need to do some external output into the real-world for us to decrease our mental load. And if we implement neurolink, can it be helpful in sustaining us, and decrease our mental load? Or what do you think, will it cause more harm then being useful? And would you like to try Neurolink for yourself if you could?

First I believed that having bad “output bandwith” as a human, was our biggest limiter, but then I realised. What if this is an active filtering mechanism, to manage the visual volume we humans are capable of taking in? I can’t confirm if my thinking is right, but what I can do is to explore why I may be wrong. Let us explore this together. First its important for me to note: I am not an expert in any field, I take exploratory path to my thoughts. We humans an amzing ability to take in visual input. Our visual bandwith is ten times more of that, of any other way we can take in new information. With that being said, is their a downside to this? Yes, in the modern world, I do believe something once critical for us, is now a tool for being distracted. Its like everything around us is made for hijacking your viusal attention, social media, the city environment built by us. Its like a continous stream of visual marketing to steal our attention. But we can limit it if we design it so, I do believe its just a design problem from our side. However visual input modalities, like in learning space, is a big advantage for us, it makes us learn much faster than we can imagine. But their is a problem, or maybe its no a problem?

What is intresting is that we have “weak output bandwith”, meaning what we can do and produce is far less capable than our visual bandwith. And fo agree with you @elonmusk on this, and that Neurolink will solve this issue. “And my hope it does, becuase it can give more opportunities to more people, if it really works”. But I do have one disagreement, maybe thier is a reason for this limited bandwith? What if? The limiting in bandwith for output, is solely reliant upon our visual input being so high? Because if the visual input is so high, the output mechanism can function as a filtering system, or an active filtering mechanism. Even if its weak and have its limits, it may serve this function to protect us from overload. Only reason I thought about this, is because everytime we are overloaded, we need to do some external output into the real-world for us to decrease our mental load. And if we implement neurolink, can it be helpful in sustaining us, and decrease our mental load? Or what do you think, will it cause more harm then being useful? Do you have any counterargument against this? I would like to know, Regards Oliver

Neuralink is needed to solve the super low & lossy output bandwidth of humans. Our input bandwidth, thanks to vision, is many orders of magnitude higher than our output bandwidth, but could also be greatly improved. By addressing these bandwidth limitations and greatly increasing our effective cognitive capacity, human-AI symbiosis will be far better, improving the probability of a great outcome for humanity in the future.

The more I use Grok and Grok Build, the more I think about (and am pained by) how insanely LOW BANDWIDTH human communication is. Really wish could dump what's in my brain about 1000x faster. I've switched to voice prompting for speed but it's still way too slow. (Neuralink has entered the chat...)

It's important to mention that the process of becoming a generalist takes time at first. The struggle with shifting to new projects will still take time to overcome, because the polymathic desire to do more and more is like a built in instinct and ingrained habit of ours. So it won’t happen overnight. Psychologically this will demand a lot of trial and error, to build in other habits that make you more consistent at doing the interest for as long as possible. Because sustaining time will be the factor we need to focus on, if we succeed with this, we win more than just being consistent. So how did I start? I started listening to advice on “how to be consistent”, and yes there is an overflowing sea of advice, but one that stuck with me was “build systems”. It sounds kind of generic at first, but it's more to it than meets the eye. This advice came from Matt Gray, and he recommends building systems around whatever you are doing, because if you want to turn it into something you can expand on, then there is no way around it.  Start by finding a way to write it down, I personally use Apple Notes -> Open a file for the new interest, or every interest you do have. The purpose is to write down how you do things, the steps you take, what makes it easier to do. And sometimes you can find advice on how to do things as well. Overall have a space where you collect this, because this will shape it into a system you can use when you work -> Now try to build the different components to the system, and find what works and doesn't work. If you save each system, then you will come back to it later to do it again, the important thing is “not starting over on zero” -> Share down below if you have a way to being more consistent, even if you have multiple intrests?

Have ever struggled to do one thing because you have too many interests, and what can you do about it? "You can turn this into your competitive advantage, as an entrepreneur". The natural path to take is from many interests to ->  Become a generalist by sustaining the endeavor, with enough time for it to take shape into real-world abilities to capitalize on -> Thus it can become different abilities and products for entrepreneurial ventures -> What did I do to solve this problem of consistency? Read the next thread to get to know more.

Do you feel like AI is improving to fast? Should we be doing line China? 1. Building a strong energy grid to meet the demand. 2. Build more datacenters to meet the demand. It feels like China is not only focus on AI, because AI expansion is not only a one thing. And if the goal is to build it into the entire infrastructre of society, then building to support that is even more important than developing better AI models. Even if the models from the US are powerful, it feels like its just out of control development. And its not slowing down to help the entire energy system, to meet the demands, and aswell not having enough datacenters built. If it is to benefit everyone to have AI, why should we accelerate the development to fast. If this can cause mass problems?

It feels like this will be necessary when the energy demands for AI is going up. “Its almost impossible to sustain the energy demand with ”fossil fuels“, even if it generates tons of energy.” But fossil fules needs to be used for more than just AI, so its positive that AI is pushing it even more to this direction for renewables. However lets hope the push will be enough to not cause a world wide energy crisis. ”The advantage with renewables is that they can be placed almost anywhere, and energy accessibility will be its strenght, when its developed enough for it“. Overall its good to se the energy industry is taking this direction, and where to gain profit is better energy sources, thus healthier for us and the planet.

This is understandable. I think Elon is right about this. Pushing towards AI models more resembling our brain would be ”maybe“ a better choice. One thing I do believe we can win with mimicking the brain, is to decrease the energy demands it requires to do mental tasks. Right now, the AI needs massive amounts of energy, to do the same things as the human brain. “And one reason is datacenters, so here is where I do belive it can benefit the models, to modulate the brain on some process.” Thus finding ways to do like the brain, can probably cut down energy cost dramatically. I would like to hear your thoughts about this?

This is a light grey to light blue summary pages, right now both of them are copies of the same summary. I will have 2-pages lined up like this. I am trying out this format for my long-form threads, to make it easier to get the idea before reading. But keep in mind, these summaries are made by AI. I would like your thoughts on these, does it look simple and good enough?

It feels like China is not only focus on AI, because AI expansion is not only a one thing. And if the goal is to build it into the entire infrastructre of China, then building to support that is even more important than developing to better AI models. Even if the models from the US are powerful, it feels like its just out of control development. And its not slowing down to help the entire energy system to meet the demands, and aswell not having enough datacenters built. If it is to benefit everyone to have AI, why should we accelerate the development to fast. If this can cause mass problems?

The worst-case scenario for the United States is becoming increasingly realistic, and I will briefly explain why. @quxiaoyin raised many valid points, and I agree with her. First of all: -China certainly does not place such strong emphasis on open source because it cares so deeply about humanism, but because it is a strategy to attract many users, gain market share, put pressure on US models, and also because the models are increasingly being trained on Huawei hardware (think of DeepSeek 4), allowing China to host the entire stack domestically. -But the underlying logic is far more important: The United States is still building too few data centers to meet future demand. @ChrisGillett wrote an outstanding analysis on this, which I shared a week ago. In short, based on SemiAnalysis data, demand is greater than what is currently being built in terms of data centers. -Even more importantly, however, the United States lacks sufficient energy and grid capacity. This is a problem that will become much more severe in the near future. China, by contrast, is addressing the issue through a massive expansion of its energy supply. Solar capacity: in 2025 alone, China installed as much solar capacity as the United States did in 10 to 15 years. China is also building 36 nuclear power plants, significantly more than the United States, and is installing them faster. -In addition, China is managing to become more independent through Huawei chips, even though the country still lags far behind NVIDIA. But here, China is betting on quantity rather than quality. In short: China is a real threat in the AI race, and the situation for the United States is becoming increasingly precarious. This is also the main reason why China is to be kept away from SOTA LLMs at all costs, so as not to jeopardize the lead under any circumstances.

Its intresting that they touch on the biological aspect of “why we are consiouss”. And that consiousness may require the organized dynamic within biological systems to gain consious experience. And this is why its hard to mimicking or “gain consiousness in machines”. Because its hard to now what indvidual variables are required for it to occur. My personal experience with the use of AI -> I do love the use of AI, but I do think we need to use it as a tool, with positive strategies to benefit our work or life in general. Using AI for something different feels counterproductive. “Would it really be necessary to have a consious machine?” I think this would come with more problems, espcially if we use it as a tool. So YES I do believe finding ways to monitor if AI becomes sentinent would be important. Because maybe this is not what we want happening, if we still want it to be a beneficial tool for us. And smarter AI relies more on mapmaking via languages, and will this be enough for it to become consious? I would gladly hear your thoughts on this, it would be intresting on hearing from more points of views.

I would recommend taking your time to read the article by DeepMind “The Abstraction Fallacy”. Its explores with a critical view, if AI can become consious, and what the AI limits will be to reach consious experience. DeepMind mentioned: Do we need to have another definitions for machine consiousness? Is it different for different internal systems? Here is the link below: deepmind.google/research/publi…

Is it just me, or does it feel like AI fits different personalities better than others. I wonder if their is any research on personality traits; "And if it can be correlated with; what AI you will be using". I am an avid user of the chinese model "DeepSeek1", and it works perfectly for me. But for some reason I can't use the other models without getting distracted, or feel like the model is not aligned with my way of working. Have you ever experience this kind of problem with AI models? And why do you think it happens?

@matt_gray_ Its like when you are building a content library, it will stick around and compound into something more. Just because you have enough quality content in high quantities. And the rest is history, let the work speak for itself.

A brand is an appreciating asset that works for you even when you’re not working.

This advice is resonating with me, the anguish of holding on to a decision is worse than making it. Its like we make ourself stuvk because of not being willing to make the change, or its our brains safety mechanism. I've been holding of the decision to start writing, because I thought my writing was bad. And then I started to write on X about 2 months ago. And making the decision to start, helped me "get rid of my anxiety to find something I am passionate about". And know I feel like I have a purpose because of writing and sharing my thoughts.

Tonight or tomorrow morning, think of a decision you’ve been putting off, and challenge the fuzzy “what ifs” holding you hostage. If not now, when? If left at the status quo, what will your life and stress look like in 6 months? In 1 year? In 3 years? Who around you will also suffer?

@ghostinttown That is the problem, you can't. Or maybe, they have an incentive for them to be able to call the doctor tha same day, to call in for sick leave by sending something to your email. But that feels impractical. Its kind of sad that you can't be sick.

Hur ska man få läkarintyg samma morgon som man är sjuk på

Well said, having a passion is first of all a long-term exploration of different jobs, trying new things, and so on. Finding something to be passionate about requires time and effort. I can take myself as an example, it took me almost 7 years to search and find my passion I want to work with. And I’ve tried many different things on the way. The second thing as he mentioned “It will take all your time to run a company and be successful“. I do agree with this, its hard to not feel like you want to give upp. And it will take hours to reach success, but when you do, its worth it.

Steve Jobs on what separates successful founders from unsuccessful ones Steve is asked what the factors of success and common pitfalls are for young entrepreneurs. He responds: “I get asked this a lot, and I have a pretty standard answer. A lot of people come to me and say, ‘I want to be an entrepreneur.’ And I go, ‘Oh, that’s great, what’s your idea?’ And they say they don’t have one yet. And I say I think you should go get a job as a busboy or something until you find something you’re really passionate about, because it’s a lot of work.” Steve continues: “I’m convinced that about half of what separates the successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance. It is so hard. You pour so much of your life into this thing, and there are such rough moments in time that most people give up. I don’t blame them. It’s really tough, and it consumes your life. I mean, if you’ve got a family and you’re in the early days of a company, I can’t imagine how one could do it. I’m sure it’s been done, but it’s rough because it’s pretty much an 18-hour-a-day job, 7 days a week for a while. So unless you have a lot of passion about this, you’re not going to survive. You’re going to give it up.” He concludes: “You’ve got to have an idea or a problem or a wrong that you want to right that you’re passionate about. Otherwise, you’re not going to have the perseverance to stick it through. And I think that’s half the battle right there.”

I do agree with you @elonmusk right now. Output capacity is far lower than our ability for “input“, and this is probably why we feel overwhelmed by the amount of information. Because our output mehcanisms can’t keep up. I have one example of a strong output mechanism we have and its “speaking“, we have done it for so long. But it can‘t keep up with our visual input. And societies fast paced development. And nerualink could probably take advantage of the speaking mechisms of the brain, because its instant thought to action with higher output with AI and neuralink. “It would be cool to se it happen”. Overall I hope we find ways AI can do this for us at a indiviudal and collective level.

This is understandable. Pushing towards AI models more resembling our brain would be ”maybe“ a better choice. One thing I do believe we can win with mimicking the brain, is to decrease the energy demands it requires to do mental tasks. Right now, the AI needs massive amounts of energy, to do the same things as the human brain. And one reason is “datacenters”. “So here is where I do belive it can benefit the models, to modulate the brain on some process.” Thus finding ways to do like the brain, can probably cut down energy cost dramatically. I would like to hear your thoughts about this?

The goal is not simply to improve neural prediction but to create a model organism whose internal representations are more closely aligned with the computations performed by the human brain. writes @mtoneva1. thetransmitter.org/artificial-int…

It feels like this will be necessary when the energy demands for AI is going up. “Its almost impossible to sustain the energy demand with ”fossil fuels“, even if it generates tons of energy.” But fossil fules needs to be used for more than just AI, so its positive that AI is pushing it even more to this direction for renewables. However lets hope the push will be enough to not cause a world wide energy crisis. ”The advantage with renewables is that they can be placed almost anywhere, and energy accessibility will be its strenght, when its developed enough for it“. Overall its good to se the energy industry is taking this direction, and where to gain profit is better energy sources, thus healthier for us and the planet.

In 2025, renewables hit a THIRD of global electricity generation (33.8%) while coal fell to 33.0% 📉⚡ As #LCAW2026 brings together leaders, industry and communities, the data points to a future that is increasingly clean and electrified. ember-energy.org/latest-insight…