Do we want to use AI for peace or war? Do we want to use it for unity, compassion, and love – or do we allow it to be used for separation, killing, control, and power? Delegating killing other humans to a machine without consciousness, without compassion, without karma is different to making the choice to kill someone yourself. If you delegate it, you avoid confronting the moral weight, the suffering, the separation it creates. Autonomous weapons are the ultimate sign that large parts of world leaders are totally disconnected from nature, conscience, and love. It is the furthest you can get from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Block just fired 4,000 people, @jack blamed AI, and the stock jumped 23%. But did AI replace 4,000 jobs or the explanation to do so? Block had 3,900 employees in 2019, then hired to 12,400 by 2022. Now it is cutting to 6,000 and calling it “AI transformation”. Officially, the company explained that this workforce reduction is due to a company internal open-source AI agent called “Goose”. It allows smaller teams to outperform. This tool is real, 75% of engineers working at Block report saving 8-10hrs per week and the CTO of Block told Sequoia that the most engaged developers have 30-40% of code AI-generated. But does this all of the sudden justify firing 4,000 roles in a single stroke? The company had Investors Day 3 months ago with materially different targets. AI is real, but what has changed in 90 days is not AI capability but perhaps the permission structure. And exactly because Block’s stock jumped 23% after-hours, this also created a dangerous incentive loop in corporate governance: layoffs + AI narrative = instant 20%+ repricing of the stock price. Many other tech CEOs will watch what Jack Dorsey just pulled of and “reverse-engineer” this formula. Jack Dorsey is not wrong that AI changes software companies fundamentally. But the more honest explanation would’ve been: “we overhired, underperformed for three consecutive years, and had 12,000 people doing the work of 6,000”. But obviously “AI tools changed what it means to run a company” sounds much better on an earnings call. In this example, AI created a nice alibi for turning something that previously would’ve been a “bloated company finally restructures” story into a “AI-native transformation” story. Any company with a headcount-to-revenue ratio above 2019 levels will follow this Jack Dorsey blueprint. Those who won’t will face investors pressure who will ask why they haven’t “AI-optimized”. The most obvious short-term take: screen for bloated public tech companies who match exactly this criteria (headcount/revenue ratios well above 2019 levels) then identify who have not yet announced AI-driven restructuring. These are candidates for similar repricing events over the next 6-12mo. If this materializes as I expect, this will have second order effects not only on office real estate but also the broader B2B SaaS ecosystem. 4,000 fewer employees also mean 4,000 fewer Slack licenses, Salesforce seats, Okta provisions. Which forces them – more than others – to use this playbook. At the same time, this will widen the gap between US and EU firms. US companies can make these workforce cuts without a second thought. EU firms cannot, they face labor regulations which make them costly or impossible.

We are still early in the corporate deployment of LLMs, which are sold as a productivity multiplier. What everybody seems to overlook is that adopting AI with the pure focus on efficiency will result in cognitive offloading at the exact organizational layers where independent judgement once created differentiation. Today’s LLMs optimize for statistically probable outputs, which by definition means average outputs. When you now deploy them across an industry, you get identical strategies, identical risk assessments, identical designs, identical code, identical “inventions” etc. This will hit enterprises the hardest, because their incentive structures reward short-term results over long-term depth. The larger the enterprise, the more will they default to maximum AI integration. They will – as a result – lay off significant parts of their workforce and end up with a remaining workforce – the remaining “best” – who at that point have shifted from active analytical or quite contrarian work to purely reviewing and accepting AI outputs and decisions passively (let’s call it “blindly”). The organizations that will survive are not the ones with the best and fastest AI implementation but the ones that maintain – deliberately, expensively, and against every efficiency incentive – the human non-algorithmic, non-AI, non-cloneable “anomaly” of human judgment and intuition. The companies that will win this decade will – IRONICALLY – not be the ones that automate the most reasoning, but those who strictly defend their strategic intuitive intelligence from AI. The winners are those who have leaders with the courage to allow individuals to hold an uncomfortable, non-data-supported position long enough to be proven right (what used to be called conviction).

China 2020: 12,020,000 births; 2025: 7,920,000 births. -34% Taiwan 2020: 165,249 births; 2025: 107,812 births. -35% Poland 2020: 365,000 births; 2025: 238,000 births. -35% Japan 2020: 840,832 births; 2025: ~667,542 births. -20.6% Türkiye 2020: 1,120,000 births; 2025: 890,000 births. -20.5% Thailand 2020: 569,000 births; 2025: 416,000 births. -27% Colombia 2020: 629,402 births; 2025: 420,000. -33% Chile 2020: 195,000 births; 2025: 135,000 births -30.7% Brazil Births in 2020: 2,728,273; Births in 2024: 2,384,438 -12.6% Argentina Births in 2020: 533,299; Births in 2024: 413,135 -22.5% Data from February 2026, via G. Moscatelli.

Anthropics is vritue signalling way too much, the CEO has really strange vibes (worse than Mr Altman) and he talks about ethics way too often. Those who talk the most about ethics are – deep inside – usally the least ethical.

Is there something like community or groups for Nostr? (like FB groups or Skool)

Why is the Primal android app consuming GBs of data? isn't this purely text or links? @paul keating any idea?

When it comes to the future, Intuition is knowing while Logic and AI are best guesses based on history.

I tried AI for advice and decision making multiple times. But it was never the answer AI gave that provided me the most value and insight, but always the thought and effort I put into the prompt ; i.e. contemplating on what I wanted advice, mentoring, or decision guidance on.

Thanks to ai and clawdbot, it's not worth reading comments anymore.

Use Bitcoin, enjoy it, let it free you from the state. But the moment it starts causing you anxiety, throw it in the river.

They build the feed. You scroll it. They ban it at home. Peter Thiel said: If you ask executives of social media companies "how much screen time do they let their kids use – there’s probably an interesting critique one could make." Peter Thiel (as early investor in Facebook) restricts his children to 1.5 hrs/week of screen time (±13 minutes a day). As you can hear, the audience gasped hearing that metric. Social media companies engineer infinite scroll -> the masses consume -> the platforms profit -> the executives send their kids to screen-free Waldorf schools The social and financial ability to disconnect from infinite information is the ultimate marker for status in 2026 and beyond. Analog childhoods are the new generational wealth. And I believe we will have the same discussions about generative AI soon. If you use AI blindly, it removes any intellectual and cognitive strugle which degrades base capability. Therefore – just as with social media – extreme rationing is the only viable defense mechanism to preserve original thought, deep reasoning, human intuitive intelligence. Perhaps it is best to limit AI use (especially but not exclusively for children) to a minimum. Don't avoid social media, use it with intention. Don't avoid AI, use it with intention.

‘The Dor Brothers’ released this 3-minute "$200,000,000 AI movie" which half the internet can’t distinguish from a real Hollywood trailer. The comments below the ‘movie’ on X are divided: some declare Hollywood dead, others insist craft can’t be automated. What if both are wrong? I think the debate is a distraction. AI video generation is not threatening Hollywood studios, it is threatening Hollywood’s workforce. Why? Follow the money. I did a quick search. VFX (visual effects) consume 20-25% of a blockbuster budget. If we talk about a $200mn film, that’s $40 to 50mn flowing to ±2mn VFX professionals globally in the market (worth $5-14bn depending on which estimate you trust) AI video generation is compressing this cost structure by perhaps 90% over the next 3 to 5 years. Do you think Hollywood studios will resist that? I don’t think so. They will embrace it, which will disrupt the production middle class: VFX houses, mid-tier production companies, and set builders. The infrastructure between “idea” and “screen” is impacted. What is left? When AI reduces production costs to ‘zero’ then the remaining MOATs are intellectual property, distribution, and the skill to make 100 million people watch the same movie at the same time. Yonatan Dor (Founder of The Dor Brothers) already said Hollywood called him, not to compete but to hire him. Overall, my thesis repeats itself. The remaining value migrates to what is uniquely human: sensing what to produce which comes from human vision, human creativity, human intuition. While Hollywood and Netflix have some of the most creative creators under contract – there is an opportunity for unknown nobodies to compete – IF they have a better idea AND and use social platforms to hack attention and distribution. Source and links in the comments.

Compared to other social platforms, how active are you on Nostr?

AGI arrives in 36 months. The AI labs building it will still face bankruptcy? This is basically what Anthropic's CEO says. With the current approach, he predicts AGI (artificial general intelligence) in 1-3 years. Yet, he also says that he does not want to purchase the $1 Trillion in compute required to do exactly that. In other words: Today, the technical scaling of AI is outpacing economic diffusion. Which is of course a massive structural risk. The AI models are improving EXPONENTIALLY while encountering enterprise procurement cycles LINEARLY. This creates a temporal cash-flow trap. If a frontier lab overestimates corporate adoption velocity by 12 months, they have $100bn in CapEx that will force them immediately into insolvency. Which means AI labs currently (must or should) under-procure compute relative to technological progress. Which creates an artificial constraint on how fast AI could actually progress. The first question now is: If a handful of companies are making trillion-dollar bets on a technology that could reshape civilization, but their survival hinges on perfectly timing sluggish enterprise adoption in an unpredictable macro environment, who actually bears the cost if their forecasts are wrong? The executives and investors who placed the bets, or taxpayers who will be told it's too dangerous to let them collapse? And from a different perspective: Should the AI companies who are building the most consequential technology in human history be able to go bankrupt? Or does that risk force us to accept a new and different arrangement?

AI cannot make novel discoveries. But AI can connect dots across knowledge humans are incapable of seeing and this is sufficient for a lot of progress.