Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

This Guy has Figured it out ! "AI won't take your job, But someone using it will " This Statement has been echoed everywhere , just to stop panic in the tech community bcoz of increasing layoffs and less hirings...Such a narrative will force many into spending money for...

15,805 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Something shocking just happened and barely anyone is talking about it. Tucked within the 2026 Farm Bill is an alarming provision. Farmers who adopt AI and precision agriculture technologies will be reimbursed for it—90% of the total cost. And the standards governing this tech won’t be set by the USDA, but by the tech industry itself. An article from Fortune titled ‘The 2026 farm bill quietly hands big tech control over American farmland. Here’s the fine print’ reads: Tucked inside the 2026 Farm Bill is a provision that would reimburse farmers 90% of the cost of adopting AI and precision agriculture technologies—15 percentage points above the normal EQIP cap.The private sector standards governing those technologies would be set not by the USDA, but by the tech industry itself.This could be a Trojan horse of sorts for something called “precision agriculture” and artificial intelligence (AI), which big tech firms will be able take advantage of farmers and further wrest control over the food system from them. The article goes on to describe precision agriculture, saying: Not only is precision agriculture defined, but it is complemented by a list of what are deemed appropriate technologies, including GPS, yield monitors, data management software, and the particularly strange sounding, “Internet of Things and telematics technologies.”That last bizarre phrase, which most would probably consider a typo, is actually a concept that abounds in tech company circles. One definition from an industry leader notes that the “Internet of Things,” or IoT, is the “network of physical objects — “things” — that are embedded with sensors, software, and other technologies for the purpose of connecting and exchanging data with other devices and systems.” You read that right. They’re connecting your food to AI. Paired with this definition is the government opening the way for corporations to have, well, a “field day” with precision agriculture, including for AI. Tucked away in the Rural Development Title, is the “promoting precision agriculture” subsection. AI, we are told particularly, is to be guided by “private sector-led interconnectivity standards, guidelines, and best practices.” In short, this is a Big Tech takeover of our food supply. But what does that really mean? According to the proponents of Agenda 2030, of which Big Tech are, they want us to consume zero meat and zero real dairy, everything must be bioengineered, and our food must contain vaccines. While we’ve seen legislative efforts to stop that from occurring, but when private companies with billions of dollars to spare on lawsuits seize control of the food supply and you have no options left, guess what happens? mRNA lettuce. And bioengineered everything. They even admit the aim is to have the food connected to AI. Thus, consuming it would presumably connect you and your loved ones to AI, too. Not only is this a privacy and complete control nightmare technocrats of old could have only dreamed of, this opens up a range of issues for a whole host of diseases humans will undoubtedly start to suffer from, because this will not be real food. Joining us now to discuss one of the solutions to metabolic health and the increased threat on it is Ryan Richardson. 🧵

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

138,546 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Geoffrey Hinton just dropped his most urgent warning about AI yet. He won the Nobel Prize for his research that made today’s AI possible. But instead of celebrating, he’s warning us about the dangers of his creation. The message is clear: “Unless we do something soon… we’re near the end.” This is not speculation. The threat is already here and it is accelerating. And if he’s right, every one of us will feel the impact. Here’s what he says is coming next: Lethal autonomous weapons AI systems being used to identify and kill without human oversight. Once you remove the human from the decision loop, warfare changes. Soldiers are no longer at risk. Governments no longer need public support. Conflict becomes cheaper and easier to justify. When war is easier to justify, big nations will be more willing to target smaller ones. And ordinary people will pay the price. Biological warfare Governments once needed billions of dollars and secret labs to create biological weapons. But with AI, all of those barriers will collapse. Which means one crazy guy with a laptop can create the next global pandemic. And we have no way to stop him. Cyber attacks Cyber attacks have increased 12x in just one year. AI has opened three new attack vectors: 1. Phishing scams on a massive scale. 2. Models that scan code for weaknesses. 3. Deepfakes that can impersonate you and convince your family to send money. The line between real and fake is disappearing fast. Every online interaction now has the potential to be a trap. And this is only the beginning. Mass unemployment AI is replacing white collar workers the same way machines replaced factory workers. We’re heading to unemployment on a scale we've never seen. Only the highly skilled will be be safe. This is not happening by accident. Big tech is betting on it: The four big tech giants Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon are expected to boost capital expenditures to $420 billion next year. When asked if these investments can pay off without destroying jobs, Hinton was clear. He said companies don’t have a choice: “I believe that to make money you’re going to have to replace human labor.” This leads to the deeper problem. Purpose crisis Work gives us more than income. It gives purpose. A reason to wake up. A reason to keep going. Take that away and people lose direction. When enough people lose direction, society starts to fracture. And this creates the perfect conditions for exploitation. Wealth inequality AI doesn't distribute opportunity evenly. Those replaced by automation will become poorer. Those who own the systems doing the replacing will become richer. Society will not divide along existing lines. It will split into two classes: The people who control AI and the people who are controlled by it. Once the gap opens, it will be impossible to close. But all of this is small compared to what comes next. The end of humans Superintelligent systems will soon be more capable than humans at every task that matters. At that point, the question is no longer theoretical. It becomes personal. What can you do to stay relevant? You have two choices. Own the technology or be replaced by it. One person using AI can now do the work of one hundred. The tools exist. The opportunity exists. The window is open. But once it closes, it will not reopen. So the question is… What are you going to do about it?

Tom Hughes

16,260 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,955,824 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat