XR Multiverse

@2sush You pay for an advantage to post on a site owned by an AI company, that scrapes your posts and trains AI with them. You stopped thinking for yourself when you joined to herd to destroy social media with AI.

The real risk with AI isn’t losing jobs. It’s slowly forgetting how to think for yourself.

@OmriBuilds Google hosts GPUs for Anthropic, OpenAI, Nvidia and Gemini. They can charge anything they want. The only winner is Google.

Who is winning the AI race? - Anthropic - OpenAI - Gemini

@wongmjane We'll be dead before that happens.

What’s the point of building a product, funding a startup, doing anything, or even existing, if AI will eventually be capable of doing everything?

@csaba_kissi It sounds like the team doesn't know how to use AI.

The scariest codebase isn't legacy code written by hand. It's fresh code generated by AI that nobody on the team actually understands. Keep in mind: documentation can't save you from ignorance at scale.

@Star_Knight12 You can ask Grok for the "most appropriate solution" to any problem in the world right now. Grok will consider all possible solutions and pick the 'most appropriate' one for the case. Try it. Solve something.

will AI able to solve all the problems of the world

@joni_vrbt @userluke_ Judges need to be wise and empathetic. AI is neither. It just sounds like it.

@userluke_ Do you really think so? Even if done right?

Shouldn’t court be run by artificial intelligence ??

@Yoshua_Bengio @ScienceBoard_UN If you think that's bad you should see the people it was trained on.

Evidence of deceptive behavior has already appeared in widely used AI systems, and the risk is expected to grow as AI becomes more capable, more autonomous, and more embedded in everyday decision-making. For further insights, see the latest @ScienceBoard_UN Brief to which I contributed. ⬇️

@dev_maims Are you complaining or bragging?

Hot take: Vibe coding only works well if you already know how to code.

@TheOtherFrost People are lazy.

Not to be confrontational, but what is the business plan behind selling genAI drawings, games, movies, music when your customers could ALSO use genAI to make their own?

@rohanpaul_ai @lexfridman Things you say when you know you haven't achieved AGI.

Jensen Huang's new interview on @lexfridman 's podcast: "I think we've achieved AGI." Lex: "Do you think you could have a company run by an AI system like this?" Jensen: "Possible" --- Full video link in comment.

@r0ck3t23 The guy that sells token generators thinks everyone should burn tokens. Shocker.

Jensen Huang just replaced the most important metric in global economics. Not trade volume. Not oil output. Not manufacturing. Compute. Huang: “Compute equals GDP. I know that for certain.” He did not say probably. He said certain. If your nation does not produce compute, it does not produce intelligence. If it does not produce intelligence, it does not produce revenue. Two links in the chain. Miss one and the whole thing breaks. Huang: “Not one country in the future will say, ‘Guess what, we’re gonna opt out on intelligence.’” Because opting out of compute is not a strategic decision. It is an extinction schedule. Every country that does not build its own inference capacity becomes a tenant in someone else’s infrastructure. Not an ally. Not a partner. A dependent. And dependents do not negotiate terms. They accept them. But this is not just a story about nations. Huang: “The entire software industry will be token-driven.” Every product. Every platform. Every service you touch. The entire business model of software is about to be measured in tokens consumed. Not seats sold. Not licenses renewed. Tokens burned. Software used to be a thing you bought. Now it is a thing that thinks. And thinking costs compute. Every query. Every action. Every decision the machine makes on your behalf. The meter is always running. Huang: “The entire internet industry could take 100% of their CapEx and make it AI because it’s better.” Not ten percent. Not a pilot program. One hundred percent. The moment any internet service rebuilds itself on generative intelligence, it outperforms every version that came before it. Search. Ads. Recommendation. Infrastructure. All of it. Better on contact. CapEx follows. All of it. Trillions moving in one direction with no offramp. The companies still budgeting AI as a line item are telling you exactly how much they understand. AI is not the line item. AI is the budget. The global economy is being re-denominated in a currency most people have not even heard of yet. Tokens. Whoever controls the supply of that currency is not playing in the new economy. They are the house. And the house does not lose.

Sleep EZ T needs a nap.

@IUY_Surtr @rryssf_ This is what I see when I visualize ideas in my mind.

@XRMultiverse @rryssf_ Seems we have different operating systems

🚨 THIS IS UNSETTLING... Princeton University just ran the most uncomfortable creativity study of the year. LLMs are already more creative than humans. The interventions that boost human creativity don't work on AI. Because AI was never fixated in the first place. > The study was straightforward. Take humans and LLMs. Give them a creativity intervention that has deep roots in the history of invention force them to draw inspiration from a random unrelated domain. Ask them to design new features for everyday products. Have 1,002 independent judges rate the results for originality. > The intervention worked exactly as expected for humans. Forced to map an octopus onto a car, or a cactus onto a backpack, people broke out of familiar solution spaces and produced genuinely novel ideas. Cross-domain prompting increased human originality significantly. The top 10% of human ideas under this condition were rated as the most original ideas in the entire study 4.88 out of 5. > Then the same intervention did almost nothing for LLMs. Not because the models are less creative. Because they're already more creative without it. Every major model except Llama outperformed humans on originality regardless of prompting condition. o3 and Claude Sonnet 4 scored highest. > The cross-domain intervention had nowhere to go the models were already operating across maximum semantic distance without being told to. > The reason is structural. Humans get fixated. They anchor to familiar solutions within a domain and can't easily escape. The cross-domain prompt forces the escape. LLMs were trained on everything simultaneously. They never developed the fixation in the first place. The intervention solves a problem they don't have. → Humans: cross-domain prompting significantly increased originality vs user-need condition → LLMs: no statistically significant originality boost from cross-domain prompting → o3 and Claude Sonnet 4: highest originality ratings across all sources and conditions → LLM ideas rated more original than human ideas even in human cross-domain condition → One exception: top 10% of human ideas slightly outperformed LLMs — humans win at the extreme tail → Greater semantic distance between source and target predicted higher originality for both humans and LLMs The finding that should make every creativity researcher uncomfortable: the humans who generated the most original ideas — a phone that creates a cyclone to guide itself back when lost, a shoe with GPS arrows lighting up the sole produced ideas rated more original than anything the LLMs generated. The ceiling for human creativity, unlocked by the right intervention, still exceeds the AI average. The floor is the problem. Without the intervention, humans anchor. With it, a few break through. LLMs skip the floor entirely and live somewhere in the middle consistently above average human performance, consistently below peak human performance.

@oliviscusAI How to "be creative" like an AI. Take one input. Think of 1000s things related to it. Iterate on connecting each one in the most appropriate way until something makes sense. Creativity is easy.

🚨 BREAKING: Princeton University just published the most unsettling AI paper of the year. It proves AI is officially more creative than the average human. And the reason why is deeply unsettling. Researchers took 1,002 judges and pitted humans against top AI models (like Claude Sonnet 4 and o3). They used a classic psychological trick to boost creativity: forced cross-domain inspiration. (e.g., "Design a backpack inspired by a cactus.") For humans, it worked exactly as expected. It forced people out of their mental ruts and spiked their originality. But when they gave the AI the exact same creative push? It did absolutely nothing. Not because the AI failed. Because the AI was already operating at maximum creative capacity. Humans suffer from "fixation." We anchor to familiar, safe solutions. We have to be forced to think outside the box. AI doesn't have a box. It was trained on everything simultaneously. It never developed the mental boundaries that hold us back. The trick solves a human flaw that AI simply doesn't have. As a result, almost every single AI model consistently beat the human average in originality. But there is one catch. And it’s the only thing saving us. When humans were given that creative push, the top 10% of human ideas beat the absolute best AI ideas. A shoe with GPS arrows lighting up the sole. A phone that creates a micro-cyclone to guide itself back when lost. The absolute ceiling of human imagination still exceeds the machine. AI skips the floor, but it can't touch the peak. It didn't automate genius. It just automated the middle class of creativity.

@IUY_Surtr @rryssf_ Think like an AI. Take one input. Think of 1000s things related to it. Iterate on connecting them in the most appropriate way until something makes sense.

@XRMultiverse @rryssf_ Well, to some extent you may facilitate conditions that are conductive to the wandering ... catalysts even.

This is the part where Trump says he will pause for 5 days and then restart the fighting after 3 days to try and catch them off guard. aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/23…

@IamKyros69 Only idiots who don't use Ai think that AI will replace anything. At best AI will help augment people abilities, mind and skills. AI need humans and humans need a job.

The former Google CEO just dropped a terrifying Al timeline.

The next 4 years are all about how to stop paying Google, OpenAI or Anthropic for AI services. Either use sovereign AI services or open models. Do not be content with paying American LLMs providers forever.

@cgtwts Which means you will be able to do the same thing for cheaper with China's open AI model without paying Anthropic or Google.

Anthropic CEO: “I think we might be six to 12 months away from when Claude doing most or maybe all of what we do end to end”. > AI writes the code > AI reviews the code > AI fixes the bugs > AI secures it software engineers are cooked.