AI Mania Is Eviscerating Global Decision-Making — Ludicity
Depressing but I have no reason to disbelieve Nik Suresh here since he sees inside these companies.
seen from Czechia
seen from Norway
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Croatia
seen from United States

seen from Thailand
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
AI Mania Is Eviscerating Global Decision-Making — Ludicity
Depressing but I have no reason to disbelieve Nik Suresh here since he sees inside these companies.
Emily M. Bender and Nanna Inie In our op-ed for Tech Policy Press ("We Need to Talk About How We Talk About 'AI'"), we made the case against
Some alternatives to use when talking about these synthetic text extrusion machines.
"AI native" college graduates are hitting the workplace -- and, as experts warned, bosses are finding their performance disappointing.
Yikes
Central bank for central banks sees shades of dotcom mania in hyperscaler capex binge
Not a good future looming.
"Mistakenly we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence ... that would produce a high-quality product.”
Hope they asked for 2x their previous salary.
“Our lies… are practically what define us. When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we cannot no longer remember it is even there, but it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid. That is how an RBMK reactor core explodes. Lies.”
This is true for so many things today, from the Trump presidency to the AI industry. And there will be an explosion at some point in the future...
I Profile Celebrities for a Living. Nothing Prepared Me for Tilly Norwood.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/31/magazine/ai-actress-tilly-norwood.html?unlocked_article_code=1.mlA.YX-h.f6FNjSsACQJZ&smid=url-share
Surprisingly not as terrible a "profile" as I thought it would be. The writer, Taffy Brodesser-Akner, found that "interviewing" the AI made her feel exhausted, like being on a computer all day. Some key observations I had:
Most of the AI's responses were not particularly insightful or compelling, which you wouldn't expect them to be since it's a text extrusion machine that outputs the mean, but maybe people would find them more compelling if they didn't know they were coming from an LLM? Not every interview subject (and celebrities, certainly!) says things that are insightful, but we often ascribe more insight to them because they are coming from a human.
If this is true, then I believe this will lead to more content producers hiding the fact that output is AI-generated, because people get that ick factor/uncanny valley effect when they realize they are interacting with a robot. Such producers -- Hollywood executives, for example -- have no incentive to clearly label output as AI, because if AI-generated content can engender emotional reactions in audiences (so long as they don't know it's AI), then this is a margin-maximizing machine. The only risk is of detection, and AI-generated content is getting harder and harder to detect, so many producers may decide that the risk of a PR disaster is worth it.
SAG-AFTRA's head, Sean Astin, had such a milquetoast reaction to AI "actors" as to be laughable: "The reason that a synthetic construct, an algorithmic output, will never take the place of a human actor is because it is not a human actor.” Yeah dude, that's tautological; you need to say more. You'd think he would do something like explaining that only human actors can create unique emotional experiences and reactions in audiences, unlike language models that essentially just parrot existing patterns in their training data, etc. Or even saying something like audiences will demand to see humans and not AI because humans value connection to other humans, or something like that.
Like I said, I gagged less at reading this article than I thought I would, though as per usual I wished the journalist had been more skeptical of the AI industry's claims. No "Tilly Norwood" or any "AI actor" is capable of the types of misalignment that the AI industry spokespeople claim that it will (become "superintelligent" and kill us), yet Akner doesn't push back on this at all and instead makes what I assume are jokes about "Norwood" killing Meryl Streep. But these jokes are misguided and I think lend credibility to this ludicrous conjecture than is warranted.
Don’t want to link to the fascist microblogging site so took a screenshot instead. This is very true, coming from Aaron Levie (Box CEO) who would know.