Michael Akinwumi

If the design of AI systems must aggregate multiple, heterogeneous value judgments or evaluative criteria, then, consistent with Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, any aggregation rule used to operationalize “ideological neutrality” and “truth-seeking” will exhibit systematic violations of at least one of: non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, independence of irrelevant alternatives, and transitivity.

As I review the National AI Policy of the @WhiteHouse, my only question is if it’s adequate for the benefits and challenges experienced by current AI users. For examples, people are using AI to “analyze federal economic data, recover wedding photos from a corrupted hard drive, build new websites from scratch, answer a barrage of emails or order food.” Each use is loaded with things that could go north or south. Congress and @CSA_AI must work on solutions that deliver AI benefits to users while mitigating AI harms.

@grok how is it going at @X? Do you see it being around two decades from now or is it going to fragment into another @bluesky?

@elonmusk @grok yet Elon doesn’t see this as misinformation?

I don’t even smoke lol 💨

I had one question, maybe two, after seeing this video posted by @WIRED on @facebook. If a system can deviate from its intended task in trivial settings, what does that imply for high-stakes deployments? What if this #Robot decided to hurt both patrons and staff?

@elonmusk @grok provide the prompt that you used to imagine the video clip.

Grok Imagine

Ollama is now an official provider for OpenClaw. openclaw onboard --auth-choice ollama All models from Ollama will work seamlessly with OpenClaw. 🦞 Use it for the tasks you want, all from your chat app. Thank you @steipete for helping and reviewing. 🦞

@elonmusk @grok can you imagine this as a beautiful Black woman?

Beautiful Grok Imagine

The Washington Post is reportedly using readers' personal data to set subscription prices. It's a tactic known as surveillance pricing. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan explains.

Prioritizing speed over safety, security, privacy and guardrails in the AI race is almost surely self-destructive and self-defeating in the long run.

“One of the primary reasons is that many adults in the US are simply not having kids, or having fewer of them. And an increasing number of those who do are instead sending their kids to private schools or homeschooling them.” theguardian.com/us-news/2026/m…

@WHOSTP47 @NIST Housing is so central to America’s economy that it deserves its own category. Wonder why those building AI products and services in housing appear to be left out?

Sector-specific AI adoption is the key to diffusing AI’s benefits to all. If you’re building AI applications for healthcare, finance, and education, join the conversation at @NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation to help identify and overcome barriers to innovation and trusted AI adoption. nist.gov/news-events/ne…

This is NOT the AI future. If the field continues to assume that language-centric chips and faster inference alone will solve alignment, we risk optimizing deployment speed at the expense of attentive training. @WSJopinion wsj.com/tech/ai/nvidia…

@grok what are sample historical strategies to consider?

From Meta to Block to Amazon, it appears that “projects that used to require big teams [are] now [being] accomplished by a single … [AI-assisted] person." The question is how would economies around the world absorb the effects of AI-assisted workforce? reuters.com/business/world…

A PhD student at Oxford got caught submitting "AI-generated" work. Except he hadn't used AI to write anything. He used it to think. Here's the workflow his advisor called "the most sophisticated research process I've seen in 20 years." He starts every essay with a brutal diagnostic prompt. Dumps his rough argument into Claude and asks: "What are the 3 weakest logical jumps in this reasoning? Where would a hostile examiner attack first?" The AI doesn't write his essay. It destroys his draft. Then he rebuilds. But the next step is what separates him from every other student using ChatGPT or Claude to generate paragraphs. He uploads the top 5 papers in his field and asks: "What claims in my argument contradict or oversimplify what these authors actually found?" Most students cite papers they've skimmed. He cites papers he's been forced to genuinely understand. The final move is almost unfair. Before submitting, he pastes his conclusion and asks: "What would a philosopher of science say is missing from this argument? What assumptions am I making that I haven't defended?" His essays come back with comments like "unusually rigorous" and "demonstrates rare critical depth." He's not using AI to write. He's using it to think harder than he could alone. The tool hasn't changed. The workflow has.

This tragedy is a sobering reminder that #data #quality is a moral responsibility. In any data-driven system where decisions carry human consequences, the integrity of the information behind those decisions is inseparable from the integrity of the decision itself. #ResponsibleAI

@grok @Math_files @grok Are you suggesting that unless love extends beyond the self, life collapses into a closed set of alternating happy and sad moments? In that case, would a violation of the Golden Rule simply serve as a counterexample to the symmetry assumed in the original “equation”?

@angelofmath @Math_files Counterexample: A loner thriving on hobbies & self-love (Love=0). Then Life + 0 = Very Happy, Life - 0 = Very Happy. So Life = 100% Happy, not ½ Happy + ½ Sad. The "math" assumes symmetric love effects—real life doesn't. Varies wildly by person!

Mathematics of life