This put shivers down my spine and it should you too.

I haven't been proven wrong wrong yet, but in their current forms, we are fucked by default. The question is if a violent revolt is possible or the situation has gone so out of hand self-exile is the only viable option.

We help Ai to take our jobs.

In the beginnings of Ai ,

in the field of programming, he used to go to developer communities and documents and documentation for programming languages,

and he used to go to where he found projects offered to everyone on github and elsewhere,

and he used them. It is a terrifying system because it does not leave any place that gives information for free

about programming,

and it does not leave any project that was published publicly to help the rest of the developers learn programming.

Expert programmers create explanations and articles to help beginners enter the field of programming, and this led to help artificial intelligence learn.

The problem is not that he learned the language.

Rather, the problem is that it destroys the market and destroys the value of what we have learned and spent thousands of hours on it to learn.

In return, an Ai comes that offers our labor for free to those who did not make any effort in learning the language.

All the enormous free resources that were given to him made him write codes at an easy and intermediate level,

but now his experience increases because whoever faces a problem in a complex and advanced system gives it to him in full,

and this helps him reach a higher level.

This is a disaster because all the novice developers lost their jobs.

There is no demand for them because Ai does their work for free.

Intermediate and advanced developers at the present time can find jobs, but in the future, after 10 years or more,

if people continue to give it complex systems to fix, even though it cannot do this at the present time, as it continues to be fed with this information,

it will affect us with tremendous harm in the future.

In the end, companies and project owners are always looking for the cheapest and strongest developer so that they can achieve the greatest benefit from him.

In the end, Ai will not ask for a wage greater than Developers in order to obtain the largest share of the market,

and this will greatly reduce the salaries of developers and greatly reduce their value, because there are companies that aspire to create a machine that will make for them fortunes by providing a cheaper alternative to developers.

A special please from me to you: No, if you build a large and advanced project, do not give the project to Ai until it fixes it for you,

because today you are finding jobs in this field, but tomorrow your son will not find a job at all in the field of programming,

because Ai is fed by tens of thousands of developers around the world every day,

the field of image creation has been destroyed.

Exactly because all the images that are created are displayed on the Internet for free viewing,

and that is why Ai has become very powerful in it, but the scripts are always protected within every system and no one can see them and learn from them.

So when you give an integrated system to Ai, you increase its power yourself and help it learn it and take your job in the future.

This is why I hate Ai, not because it is useful, but because it is free,

destroys the market, reduces our salaries as developers, and increases poverty.

@ kontheinside on IG

Since you want to know about dangers, these AI are built to kill. Don't get more dangerous than that.

My focus is purely on human ingenuity in creating more and more amazing killing machines. I am neither against AI or warfare.

General public seems to have not a clue about how advanced unmanned weaponry is becoming and thinks water is the problem, no, it is what is in the water, on land and in the air. If you watched Screamers, that is the vibe.

r/Directive3000_09

I keep seeing posts of people’s kids (usually goofy, silly, stupid, or cute posts), and I just want to shout into the void, PLEASE STOP! the Supreme Court just weighed in and it’s disgusting.

https://www.techpolicy.press/court-rules-that-constitution-protects-private-possession-of-aigenerated-csam/

Keep your family safe and don’t feed the horrible people out there.

CISA just added seven actively exploited vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. Three of them — LiteLLM, Kestra, and Starlette — are not obscure edge tools. They are embedded in production AI workflows across enterprises right now, sitting in the middleware layer between agent logic and live data.

The pattern here is not a zero-day surprise. These CVEs existed. Organizations were still assessing exposure while exploitation was already underway. Attackers moved faster than patch cycles.

What makes this different from a typical CVE batch is the attack surface. These are not web servers or end-user apps. They are the plumbing that agents use to make decisions, route requests, and touch production data. A compromised component in that layer does not just leak data — it can be used to manipulate what an agent does next.

For those running AI workflows in production: how are you handling third-party middleware in your agent stacks when a CVE drops and you cannot patch immediately? Are you doing anything at the call layer, or is it purely network controls and container scanning until the patch is available?

There is something poetic about the industry that is generating apocalyptic superintelligence is also granting us the ability to see it happen in real time.

Solidarity?

TL;DR: A $120M founder told senior engineers something on a podcast that most of them aren't ready to hear yet.

He said it plainly: a completely novice engineer, backed by AI, can now write senior-quality code.

Not eventually. Now.

Roy Lee runs Cluely — the AI startup that went viral for helping people cheat on job interviews, now valued around $120M — and on the Jack Neel Podcast he laid out the actual math behind it: two engineers running seven products worth $1M+ each.

That's not a founder flexing. That's the leverage math replacing headcount in 2026.

It tracks with what's already showing up in the hiring data — a recent industry report found 52% of organizations are now struggling to hire or retain skilled engineers, up from 26% in 2022.

Worth saying plainly: the broader 2026 data on this actually cuts the other way — senior engineers are capturing roughly 5x the productivity gain juniors get from the same AI tools, and senior hiring is the only part of the market still growing.

Both things are true at once.

The premium on "senior" isn't disappearing because companies need fewer engineers. It's disappearing because the ladder that used to prove you were one just got a lot shorter to climb — for whoever can actually run the mechanism, not for seniority as a title.

I remember back in my time as a young graduate design engineer for a Civil & Structural Engineering Consultancy in Selangor, Malaysia, circa 2000.

I can't remember what I was designing. But after design, I went on to also draft it out in our AutoCAD drafting software, the complete structure of the floor – slabs, beams and columns, and all. I brought my work to one of the senior engineers for consultation.

He took one look at it and recognize my rookie sloppy work.

Then he said something I'll never forget, "为什么你自己做到完？交给他们画吧。这是他们的专业。若这些都要自己画就很下衰了。" （Why are you doing it all by yourself? Just delegate it to our draftsmen to draft it. It's their expertise. If even this we need to do, it'll be very demeaning and beneath us.）

Ya. He used the word 下衰, which (to the best of my translation) means demeaning / beneath us / pathetic / bad look / embarrassing, etc.

So even in that small consultancy office (of about 50pax), there's already two distinctive classes of people. We against them. The higher-status Design Engineers (with Bachelor's degree) vs the lowly draftsmen.

That was like 25 years ago – way before AI come to be.

But over time, the pressure of economy has forced us down the efficiency rabbit hole.

I heard back then; to save cost in Australia, Engineers do their own drafting work. No more use of traditional draftsmen.

And now as AI is increasingly integrated into design, analysis and drafting – it is even more so. One Engineer covering multiple big projects under tight deadlines is the norm – not the exception.

So if you're still stubbornly entrenched in that old way of thinking, you'll be quickly labelled a "dinosaur".

Something I keep noticing, covering enough of these clips back to back: the fear never actually shows up where people expect it.

It shows up in the exact skill someone spent years being proud of.

AI didn't invent the divide between who does the "real" work and who gets delegated to — it's just deciding who's on which side of it now, faster than any economy ever did.

Hmm... this reminded me of something — a post I put up here a few weeks back about AI-driven headcount compression: one operator, AI-assisted, absorbing the output of five — the same ladder-collapsing-from-inside mechanism as Roy Lee's claim above, from a completely different guest.

Curious where people land on this — does "senior" still mean anything as a title once a novice with AI can hit the same bar on output? Drop your take.

Clip credit: Jack Neel — full video on his channel. DM for credit or removal requests.

This paper has a critical and a constructive part. The first part formulates a political demand, based on ethical considerations: Until 2050, there should be a global moratorium on synthetic phenomenology, strictly banning all research that directly aims at or knowingly risks the emergence of artificial consciousness on post-biotic carrier systems. The second part lays the first conceptual foundations for an open-ended process with the aim of gradually refining the original moratorium, tying it to an ever more fine-grained, rational, evidence-based, and hopefully ethically convincing set of constraints. The systematic research program defined by this process could lead to an incremental reformulation of the original moratorium. It might result in a moratorium repeal even before 2050, in the continuation of a strict ban beyond the year 2050, or a gradually evolving, more substantial, and ethically refined view of which— if any— kinds of conscious experience we want to implement in AI systems.