Rainer Luginbühl 👍

«Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds» Robert Oppenheimer explaining what he witnessed and felt after the first atomic bomb test. (July 16, 1945)

Unterwegs: Smarte Alternativen zu Google Maps: Diese Karten bringen dich auf den richtigen Weg | Swisscom Blog buff.ly/K4WVhYg

Deleting your internet history from your browser is never enough. Every click, every search, is still saved. Here's how to completely delete your internet history and turn yourself into a digital ghost:

The CEO of Anthropic believes the defeat of cancer, the cure for Alzheimer's, and the doubling of the human lifespan could all happen before 2035. He wrote 15,000 words explaining exactly how. Almost nobody read it. His name is Dario Amodei. Before he founded the company that built Claude, he was vice president of research at OpenAI. He has a PhD in biophysics. He spent years watching these systems scale up from the inside, and he is one of the very small number of people alive who has full visibility into what the next generation of models can actually do. He called the essay Machines of Loving Grace, and the reason most people did not get past the first few pages is that it is structured like a scientific paper, not a manifesto. The argument is careful. The predictions are specific. And the thing buried inside it is the clearest vision of the near future that anyone running a frontier AI lab has ever put on paper. Here is what he actually said, and why it matters that he said it. He started with a definition most people skip past, and the whole essay depends on it. He said powerful AI, the thing he is describing, is a system smarter than a Nobel Prize winner across almost every relevant field. Biology. Programming. Math. Engineering. Writing. Not a chatbot. Not a copilot. Something that, given the resources used to train it, could be repurposed at inference time to run millions of instances of itself, each operating at ten to a hundred times human speed. He gave this entity a name. A country of geniuses in a datacenter. That phrase is doing a lot of work. He was careful about the word country. He meant that these millions of instances could be fine-tuned into different specializations and could collaborate the way a real civilization of scientists would. Some of them focused on cancer. Some on materials science. Some on statecraft. Some on building the next generation of themselves. All running in parallel, all communicating instantly, all operating at speeds the physical world cannot match. Then he made the prediction that almost nobody has actually sat with. He said the arrival of this system, which he thinks could happen as early as 2026, would compress the progress that human biologists would have made across the entire rest of the twenty-first century into a window of five to ten years. Fifty to a hundred years of biomedical research, done in under a decade. He called this the compressed twenty-first century, and he said it with the same tone a physicist uses to describe a verified result. The specific outcomes he predicted in that window are the ones most people cannot emotionally absorb on the first read. Reliable prevention and treatment of nearly all natural infectious disease. Elimination of most cancer. Effective cures for genetic disease. Prevention of Alzheimer's. The doubling of the human lifespan to around one hundred and fifty years. He walked through the mechanism for each of these one at a time. He did not present them as miracles. He presented them as what happens when the rate limit on biology shifts from the availability of brilliant scientists to the speed of physical experiments, because the scientists become effectively infinite. The part that separates his vision from every science fiction version of this story is the part he spent the most words on. He said he does not believe AI will instantly transform the world the day it arrives. He rejected that framing explicitly. He said intelligence has hard limits imposed by the physical world. Clinical trials take time. Cells take time to grow. Human institutions are slow. Regulatory frameworks exist. The speed of light applies. His actual argument is that progress will be bounded by these physical and social frictions, not by the intelligence itself, and that the work of the next decade is figuring out which of those frictions are real and which are just habits we have not yet realized we can dissolve. He wrote that a significant fraction of progress in biology has historically come from a tiny number of broad measurement tools and techniques. CRISPR. Cryo-electron microscopy. AlphaFold. Maybe one major tool per year, collectively responsible for more than half of all progress in the field. The country of geniuses in the datacenter is not faster because it has better ideas. It is faster because it can produce hundreds of these foundational tools in the time human civilization currently produces one. He did not stop at biology. He laid out five categories where he expected the same compression to happen. Biology and physical health. Neuroscience and mental health. Economic development and poverty. Peace and governance. Work and meaning. Each one gets the same treatment. The same specificity. The same refusal to hedge. And he ended the essay with a line that has stayed with me since the first time I read it. He wrote that if all of this happens in five to ten years, the defeat of most diseases, the lifting of billions of people out of poverty, a renaissance of the things that make human life worth living, everyone watching it will be surprised by the effect it has on them. The reason this essay matters is not that the predictions are correct. They might not be. He said that himself, many times, in careful language. The reason it matters is that it is the most specific, most grounded, most empirically careful vision of what the next decade could actually look like coming from someone who has the resources and the team to make it happen. Most people are preparing for a future that looks like a faster version of the present. Dario Amodei spent fifteen thousand words trying to tell anyone who would listen that the future is not going to rhyme with the past, and that almost nobody is actually thinking at the scale of what is about to be handed to them. Whether or not he turns out to be right, he is the one person in the room who has drawn the map. And when a map like that shows up from someone with that kind of vantage point, the right move is not to dismiss it as optimism. It is to read it all the way through and then ask yourself what you would build if you actually believed him. darioamodei.com/essay/machines…

The Notes app on your iPhone is one of the most powerful tools available. But 99% of people don’t know its true potential. Here are 15 amazing features you must know:

Phishing mit AI: Warum man heute am besten «niemandem mehr traut» buff.ly/QQkFv1l

AI is the first technology in history where more customers makes you POORER. Every tech company in history got cheaper as it scaled. More users meant lower costs per user. That's the entire model. That's why Microsoft prints money. That's why Google prints money. That's why Meta prints money. Software has near-zero marginal cost. Build it once. Sell it a billion times. The 100 millionth user costs basically nothing to serve. This is the single most important rule in tech economics. But AI completely broke it. Every single query costs real compute. Every interaction burns real electricity. Every response depreciates real hardware. There is no "build once, sell forever." There is only "burn money every time someone asks a question." And the numbers prove it: OpenAI hit $20 billion in annualized revenue. Losses? $14 billion. For every dollar they earn, they spend $1.69 delivering it. Their losses TRIPLED as their revenue grew. Not because they're bad at business, but simply because the model itself is broken. Anthropic crossed $30 billion in annualized revenue. Still burning billions. Still not profitable. Still raising tens of billions just to keep the lights on. xAI is burning $1 billion every single month. Perplexity spent 164% of its revenue on compute costs from AWS, They literally spent more on running the AI than they made from selling it. This is not how technology is supposed to work. Google once estimated that adding AI to every search query would require 500,000 A100 servers. The cost of answering a single AI query is 10x MORE than a traditional search result. Traditional software: Serving 1 million users costs roughly the same as serving 100,000. The marginal cost is basically zero. AI: Serving 1 million users can cost 10 times what 100,000 costs. Every new user is a new expense. Every new query is a new dollar burned. This is reverse economics. The more successful you become, the faster you die. And nobody in the industry wants to talk about it because the entire narrative depends on you believing AI companies work like software companies. But they don't. They NEVER will. Software scales to infinity. AI scales to bankruptcy. HSBC ran the numbers on OpenAI specifically. Their conclusion: Even after every funding round, every investment, every deal, OpenAI still faces a $207 BILLION shortfall to reach profitability. The industry response has been to raise prices. ChatGPT went from free to $20 to $200 for the Pro plan. And it's still not enough because the cost of running these models grows FASTER than any price increase consumers will accept. Meanwhile 966 AI startups died in 2024. A 25.6% jump from the year before. AI startups burn cash twice as fast as non-AI tech companies. And the ones building on TOP of OpenAI and Anthropic are in even worse shape. Every wrapper app. Every "AI-powered" SaaS tool. Every startup whose entire product is someone else's model with a different skin on it. They're all margin-negative. Every single one. And these are the companies about to IPO. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cerebras. $240 billion in combined raises planned for 2026. They're asking you to invest in an industry where the fundamental unit economics don't work. Where the MORE customers you get, the MORE money you lose. Where no company has figured out how to make the math positive. The dot-com bubble had the same pitch: "Revenue is growing. Profitability comes later." For most of them, later never came. The question isn't whether AI will change the world. It will. The question is whether it can do it without going broke first. And right now, every single number literally says no. How can they become profitable?

'Daily Show' host Jon Stewart says what we've all been thinking about Trump's infamous signature.

Apple-Chef Tim Cook tritt im September zurück – John Ternus wird Nachfolger to.welt.de/nOYf1nM

Nach dem unwürdigen Rausschmiss beim Hockeyverband orientiert sich Patrick Fischer beruflich neu…

“How do I know I am not being deceived?” In 1641, René Descartes asked exactly this while sitting by his fireplace. He began stripping away every belief he could possibly doubt, sense perception, memory, even mathematics until he reached a radical possibility: what if everything I experience is being fed to me as an illusion, like an “evil demon” controlling my senses? This wasn’t just skepticism for its own sake. It was a first-principles reset of knowledge itself. Descartes was trying to find something so fundamental that even deception couldn’t destroy it. What he found was the famous conclusion: cogito, ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am.” Even if everything else is uncertain, the very act of thinking proves that the thinker exists. Doubt itself becomes evidence of existence. This moment helped birth modern epistemology which is the study of what we can actually know and how we can know it. The deeper impact is philosophical but also surprisingly relevant to physics and cognition. It forces a hard realization: we never experience the world directly. We experience a constructed version of it, built by the brain from sensory signals. In that sense, what we call “reality” is always an interpretation, not a raw experience. This idea becomes even more interesting in modern science. Neuroscience shows perception is a prediction process, not a direct recording. And in theoretical discussions, it even echoes ideas like simulation hypotheses, where reality itself could be fundamentally informational. Descartes didn’t prove we live in a simulation. But he did something more important: he showed that certainty has to start from the inside from the one thing you cannot doubt. Everything else is built on top of that.

@PhysInHistory Stephen Hawking would probably have added, dryly: It doesn’t need any built-in purpose. It runs remarkably well as it is.

In your opinion, does the universe have a purpose ? ✍️

I cancelled Canva. Cancelled CapCut. Even dropped most subscriptions. Why? Because 30 days of content now takes under an hour. Claude does the heavy lifting. Here are the 7 prompts that make it possible.

@Kawsar_Ai Mir geht es auch so.

For 3 years I defended ChatGPT. Today I use Claude. And I'm going to say something that 6 months ago I wouldn't have said: It's the technology that's changed my life the most since the Internet. These 10 prompts explain why I switched 👇

Claude Cowork computer use is absolutely insane 🤯 Schedule a task once → Claude opens your browser, logs into Meta Ads Manager, pulls your performance data, analyzes your creatives, and saves a finished brief to your computer. Every morning, while you sleep. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still manually pulling ad reports, screenshotting competitor ads, and copy-pasting data between tools every week. If your Monday morning looks like this — log into Ads Manager, export a CSV, open it in a spreadsheet, try to figure out why CPAs spiked, screenshot competitor ads from the Ad Library, paste everything into a doc, and write a brief from scratch ... Claude Cowork now runs the entire thing without you touching your keyboard: → Opens Chrome and navigates to your Meta Ads Manager → Pulls performance data across every active creative → Opens the Meta Ad Library and checks 5 competitors for new ads → Analyzes hook performance, fatigue signals, and winning angles → Writes a creative brief in your brand voice → Saves everything as real files directly to your computer → Runs on whatever schedule you set — daily, weekly, pre-standup No CSV exports. No copy-pasting between tools. No sitting at your desk pulling reports. What you get: → A daily performance snapshot without opening Ads Manager → Competitor ad monitoring on autopilot → Creative fatigue signals flagged before CPAs blow up → A data-backed brief your creative team can execute immediately → All of it running while you're at the gym, getting coffee, or on your phone Send a task from your phone. Claude picks it up on your desktop. You get the finished deliverable. I put together a full playbook with the exact setup, the prompts, the scheduled task config, and 5 DTC workflows that use computer use. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "CLAUDE" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Physics professor discloses in 1 minute the full insight of Quantum Mechanics.

"Wir unterrichten bereits in den ersten Semestern, dass Verbrennungsprozesse viel ineffizienter sind als die Erneuerbaren. Und was man jetzt momentan vorhat, ist ungefähr so, als wenn jemand zu euch nach Hause kommt & sagt: Der Induktionsherd, muss raus. Jetzt wird wieder auf offenem Feuer gekocht." #Lesch #München erneuerbare-energien-verteidigen.de/muenchen/

Introducing our new collaboration with Anthropic: Canva is now in Claude Design! Generate ideas in Claude. Edit in Canva. No friction. No starting from scratch. canva.com/newsroom/news/…