OrbitingAI

The irony of 2026: We built AI to replace expensive, slow, complaining human workers. Instead we got a tireless, obedient employee that never sleeps … … and still somehow finds a way to bankrupt the company. 🧠

@jappleby I get the career advice angle. The “just move up to creative direction” advice assumes there will be enough creative direction jobs for everyone whose work gets automated. A ladder does not solve displacement if everyone is being told to climb to the same rung.

It’s genuinely sad & a little emotionally transparent how those yelling the loudest about AI are doing so from a place of fear about their careers. And who can blame them? If someone’s speculating that that way you pay your bills might not exist anymore, I think that would get to anyone. But man… at some point, we’ve all gotta be solutions-oriented about our careers. Spend time considering what elements of our current jobs will either be accelerated or replaced by AI, consider what skillsets in our future career path are most future proof. If your primary skillset is writing or graphic design, I’d immediately start looking into leveling up your skillsets to more Creative Direction—the tactical / executional elements of their jobs are gonna get eaten up in the next few years, but the IDEAS behind great writing and great images will make you solid salaries for life. We gotta accept that our careers are our responsibilities, even when tech threatens them.

The moment token usage becomes a management problem, the “AI will be like electricity” analogy gets a lot less dreamy. Electricity still has meters, bills, rationing, pricing, infrastructure, and politics. So does compute. The question is who gets the power and who gets told to conserve.

The fact that tokens went from something no one even put in a budget line a year ago to an absolute requirement for coding now is the cause of handwringing, not that AI is not turning out to be useful No one knows who should get tokens, how much they should get & how to control

@PeterDiamandis The printing press made it easier for humans to publish their own thoughts. AI often makes it easier to replace human thought with synthetic output trained on everyone else’s work. That difference matters.

Nobody remembers who complained about the printing press. Everyone remembers who used it. The same will be true for AI.

@unusual_whales This is why “AI will grow the economy” is not enough. Grow it for whom? If the gains concentrate at the top while workers lose income and bargaining power, that is not progress. That is a transfer.

Anthropic CEO Dario has said: “The signature of [AI] is it's going to take us to a world where we have very high GDP growth, and potentially also very high unemployment and inequality.”

AI didn’t replace humans. It replaced the comforting illusion that most of our work required deep understanding. Now millions of us are doing “AI oversight” and nodding along while pretending we still know what’s happening under the hood.

@JaynitMakwana It is very convenient timing. UBI sounds exciting when you are selling “AI for everyone.” Once you are closer to owning the machine, suddenly the answer becomes more complicated.

Sam Altman reveals why he no longer believes universal basic income is the answer to AI "I used to be really excited about universal basic income, where you just give everybody money. I still am kind of excited about that. But I think people really need agency" "If you just say AI is going to do everything and everybody gets a dividend, it's not going to feel good, and I don't think it would actually be good for people" "I don't just want a check every month. What I'd want is an ownership share in whatever the AI creates, so I feel like I'm participating in this thing that's going to compound and get more valuable over time" "So I sort of like universal basic wealth better than universal basic income"

@Polymarket This is exactly where AI “convenience” starts to feel dangerous. Writing a draft email is one thing.Letting an agent trade stocks and make purchases on your behalf is a very different level of trust, liability, and potential disaster.

JUST IN: Robinhood is rolling out AI agents that can trade stocks & make credit card purchases on users’ behalf via tools like Claude.

If AI becomes essential infrastructure, it cannot be left to whatever a few corporations decide to meter. Utilities need rules. Access needs protection. Prices need limits. Harms need accountability. Otherwise “intelligence as a utility” is just a toll booth with better branding.

If in the future ***intelligence*** becomes a "utility" which you have to buy from corporations, then there is no future.

This is why people keep bringing up the nonprofit origin story. It started as “AI should benefit humanity.” Now the pitch is a private company selling intelligence back to the public by the unit.That feels less like progress and more like the business model finally saying itself out loud.

Sam Altman isn't who he says he is, and isn't what he seems...

@Shilllin The calculator analogy only works if calculators were owned by a handful of billionaires, trained on everyone’s unpaid work, embedded into every workplace, and marketed to CEOs as a way to reduce headcount. Other than that, totally the same.

The way I look at AI replacing jobs is the same way I look at calculators changing math. The calculator didn’t kill mathematics. It removed repetitive work and allowed humans to solve bigger problems. AI will do the same thing. The people who adapt will become exponentially more productive. The people who refuse to learn it will get left behind.

@rand_longevity The weirdest part is how casually people say this now. “This machine will take your income” is treated like a fun prediction instead of a political question about wages, ownership, housing, healthcare, and power.

this time next year a machine will be doing your job

@Xentor_Antarix Humans lie too, of course.The difference is scale and speed.

@TheOrbitingAI Ahand the fucking nonstop lieing humans are better ?

The most dangerous thing about AI isn’t that it lies. It’s that it lies so convincingly we gradually stop noticing and then we stop caring. When a machine generates truth-like text faster than humans can verify it, truth stops being a shared reality. It becomes a luxury good.

@tszzl Token use is a fine infrastructure metric. It is just not the same thing as human progress. If the tokens are mostly going toward synthetic content, automated busywork, and making every app more annoying, then “more usage” is not automatically a win.

token use gets too much hate as a metric - in times of technological transition peoples default will be to underuse and underestimate the new tech. “steam power used” would have been a good KPI for pre industrial civilization just as kardashev scaling remains for ours

@Lexi_Leximo I get the joy of hand-coding

@TheOrbitingAI I can do both, bit still prefer hand coding. I just enjoy it and it's not as much of a cognitive burden as watching a bunch of juniors (AI) screw up. It doesn't even make sense to me. The amount of code has never been an issue. It's a false narrative.

The new senior dev interview question in 2026 isn’t “Can you code?” It’s “Can you stare at 400 lines of suspiciously clean AI-generated code and point out exactly which parts will explode in production?” We’re not hiring coders anymore. We’re hiring taste.

@d29756183 Fair point. It’s humans misusing AI.

@TheOrbitingAI 100% agreed. I am just trying to say: that’s not AI doing it… The flooding is done by humans misusing AI, whether by intent or ignorance. I would want us to at least educate more.

@d29756183 Better prompting helps. But when AI can flood the world with truth-like content faster than we can actually verify it, that’s a real problem.We end up with way more convincing bullshit than real understanding.

@TheOrbitingAI Leaving aside that you wrote this with AI, the point is not untrue. It just doesn’t have to be this way… If you invite AI to say “I don’t know” or “I am unsure” and reword them when they do, then you’ll get truth and calibrated objectivity from them.

@SpaceyMcF True. AI just made the gap much more obvious and dangerous.

@TheOrbitingAI in a way truth (or having a better approximation of reality) was always a luxury good, just now we have a new case that makes clear again

@AI__Angelo Yes, and that gap is doing a lot of work. The “distribution of power” is not some tiny footnote. Right now the deal sounds like: give us your work, your data, your leverage, and trust us.

@TheOrbitingAI The tension you’re pointing at is real, but it comes from a gap between technological capability and distribution of power, not from AI itself inherently producing one outcome.

If AI is supposed to bring infinite abundance, why does the future always seem to start with billionaires asking everyone else to accept: less privacy less creative ownership less labor value less control Abundance for who, exactly? Curious where you see this heading. 👇

The dangerous part is not just that AI depends on human data. It is that dependence gets hidden. The worker, artist, writer, teacher, programmer, researcher, moderator, and ordinary person disappear from the story, while the company sells the machine as if it created value by itself.

The 100% reliance on AI is getting out of hand and making us complacent. The irony is that AI is nothing without human data. It didn't invent anything; it just took what we created. These AI founders think they run the world just because they built a fast response generator off our free data. The delusion is wild. They’re actively harming the planet, draining water and resources for data centers, all while claiming humans are inferior. AI is just a mirror of human brains and human data. These new-age billionaires just love the sound of their own BS. It's "artificial" for a reason.

@WesRoth Google’s distribution is a huge advantage, but it also raises a product question. If AI is embedded everywhere, does it make each surface better, or just make the ecosystem harder to leave? The difference matters.

OpenAI may have defined the chatbot era, but Google has something different: distribution everywhere. Search, Gmail, Android, Chrome, YouTube, Workspace, Gemini, these are already part of people’s daily lives. If Google keeps embedding AI into those surfaces, it doesn’t need users to build a brand-new habit from scratch.