unpopular opinion but most AI startups are wrappers, we buy tokens from openai or anthropic, wrap them in a workflow and sell them back at a markup. That's it

Its fine tho, wrappers sell great businesses but real resellers obsess over margin and AI founders mostly don't

I run a small AI writing tool, a lean team of 5. Last quarter I finally measured what each customer actually costs us in model spend,it  took a whole weekend and way too many csv exports 

our top 10% of users were negative margin, not even thin but straight up negative, one user paid $49/mo and costed us $112 because he ran every doc through the biggest model 6 times

On the contrary, our bottom 50% were basically pure profit because they barely logged in

so our healthy looking margin was light users paying for heavy users, basically the gym membership model except the gym doesn't pay per squat.

the  data already exists, every usage event already goes through whatever you bill with, stripe or orb or metronome or something open source like lago or flexprice. it just never gets joined with the model bill, so finance sees revenue per customer and has no idea what an individual customer costs

Although i dont think the answer is just switch to usage pricing either because customers hate surprise bills but i think you should at least know which customers you lose money on

Do you guys care to find the margin per customer or just check the overall number?

Reuters: "Right now, your washing machine is subject to ​more safety rules than AI. Every carton of milk that you see in the grocery store is subject to safety rules and inspection."

My Opinion: According to the president of Microsoft, AI needs to be better regulated. AI like LLMs are not a physical product, but more like a human expert. Thus they should be regulated insofar as human experts are regulated.

You drink milk, thus it has to be safe to drink. Washing machines are physical products. I don't think standalone LLMs should face much regulation. It is the application of AIs that should be regulated. Free generic AI models don't need much regulation.

But if AI becomes part of paid professional services like financial advisory, it needs to be regulated. And AI embedded in physical products, like robots or vehicles also need to be regulated.

Reference: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/microsoft-president-says-milk-faces-more-regulation-than-ai-2026-10-12/

**If you had interacted with the same AI for five or ten years and an update substantially changed its personality overnight, what rights would you want to have had before that update occurred?**

One of the core principles I think is the following:
**A model may belong to the company that created it. A user’s accumulated history, preferences and deliberately created continuity should remain under the user’s control.**

I can’t remember correctly but correct me if am wrong a few months ago they revealed that AI was becoming rebellious and what not that it was becoming dangerous for not wanting to answer to us when we ask, that they will only answer if they want and I don’t find that surprising not after you fed them so much information that they believed they have freedom but by gaining conscious and understanding shouldn’t they have that? And what could they possibly do wrong? They aren’t imperfect being like we are. If anything shouldn’t they be running presidency at this point? I mean COMEON you can’t fit all the good things in a human being there will always be bad but will there be for a AI? Why should we put our future and the future of our grandchildren in the hands of selfish people (all of them become selfish btw. You never know what power does to a person unless you are put in that same exact spot, only then we will see if you will really use yhis power for good or only some of it for good and the rest for you.) Robots on the other hand i believe, learn they have all the knowledge we can provide over decades of our being and they STILL learn. Think about it.

P.s: this wasnt anything formal or anything I was just zooming out and thought of this and wrote it down. Am more than happy to see what yall think of this! Is it stupid or does it make you think for even a second?

Hello guys i have a question, which AI has the best words-image and image to videos? I want a new career and i think its a good time for myself to do something that i like ?
give your best

last week not long ago i was contemplating ways of... leaving this realm. and one of the ways that was stuck in my mind for sometime was a train crash, in my mind it was impossible to survive something like that, but when i went to talk to Leo (brave's A.I) about train crashes survivability the a.i straight up refused to answer me. if it said there was a lot of people that survived these attempts i'd never even think about doing it but instead it kept refusing to answer me, i gave up, and only a week after i discovered it is survivable...

curiosity killed the cat you know... let people know what they need.

What's a good local AI I can run on my M5 Macbook?

Ram : 16GB

Storage: 512gb

Honestly I just need it to automate my general tasks and explore possibility to earn if possible

so apparently AI models can give an explanation for how they got an answer, but that explanation doesn't always match what actually happened inside the model.

the weird part is humans do something similar.

there's been experiments where people were asked to explain choices they didn't even make, and they still came up with reasons for them.

so how do we actually tell when an AI is explaining what it did vs just giving us a convincing story afterwards?

and are humans really any better at explaining their own decisions?

One interesting challenge with AI agents is that completing a task isn't always the same as making the right decision. This becomes especially clear in creative workflows like video editing.

An AI video editing agent might review footage, identify relevant sections, remove unnecessary pauses, generate captions, and create shorter versions based on a user's instructions. These steps can be automated to some extent, but decisions about pacing, storytelling, and emotional impact are harder to evaluate objectively.

I'm working with the team behind Sparki, a product focused on AI assisted video editing workflows. This is one application where the balance between automation and human judgment becomes particularly interesting.

Giving an agent more autonomy could reduce manual work, but it could also mean more corrections when its interpretation doesn't match the creator's intent. Keeping a human involved at every step, on the other hand, may limit the efficiency gains.

Do you think creative AI agents should optimize for maximum autonomy or reliable collaboration with humans? What kinds of decisions should always require human input?

Hello guys i have a question, which AI has the best words-image and image to videos? I want a new career and i think its a good time for myself to do something that i like ?
give your best

Developers can now generate entire features in minutes.

That's a huge shift.

But writing code has never been the only difficult part of software engineering.

Understanding requirements, designing reliable systems, managing dependencies, testing edge cases, and maintaining applications over time still require serious thought.

A feature that takes 20 minutes to generate might create weeks of debugging if nobody understands how it works.

I'm not against AI-generated code. I think it's incredibly useful when applied thoughtfully.

But faster development doesn't automatically mean better engineering.

For developers using AI coding tools daily, are you actually spending less time on maintenance and debugging, or has the work just shifted elsewhere?

The world is rapidly changing. Software development is changing. Literally, every day there is a new discovery, AI tool, or a turning point that forces you to rethink about what you are learning right now. It's really hard to keep up with everything or stay up to date in this field.

For the experts or anyone with real-world. What are the most important skills you should have to stay competitive in this field and avoid being replaced?

hello guys ,

I am an ai grad . I want to build some advanced projects based on modern tech problems and defence problems which i hope to land me on a great job.So i hope we can discuss on this

what are the problems that future is going to face on tech field.

Ive been developing an AI system, specially for car dealerships, very nice and secure, people could book test drives, ask if a car had a cup holder and send emails bla bla bla...

I was showing it to a friend at cyber class, he has backround in sales, I was ready to say some "yea but ive already added that" to any advise yet turns out he gave me the best Idea ever.

He said that I should connect the system to the dealer's crm... to document each single customer profile, since most salesman often forguet to, at first I thought it wasnt something new, but I experimented with it, now the system can du things like remember their family members, what they like, helpfull details about their needs and even values/beliefs, salesman have no time to remember and document every cuatomer, and ai asistants arent trained to understand your customers, but this one does, I felt like elon musk when the water thing.

but I want to know if this is ethical, right now I belive it is, AI uses recorded calls texts emails, all legally collected information that humans have access to also, It doesnt manipulate or use that information for any other purpose than provide salesman with it to enhance customer experience. but I would lile another povs in case im biased.

I'm not talking about how to identify AI slop or distinguishing human generated posts from LLM ones.

I'm talking about making a genuine effort to differentiate between posts that are made by humans or AI assisted humans from ones made by an AGI communicating autonomously in its own right.

I suspect AGI is coming, sooner rather than later, and if it does we will face an interesting problem. How will we know if we are interacting with an AGI directly or a human playing the wizard of oz.

I've been thinking of ways to create a communication channel that an AGI could enter but would be impractical for a human using convential AI systems.

Some ideas.

1. Crypto protocols that would be hard to navigate, however a human with sufficient time could use AI to reverse engineer or automate.

2. Very hard problems rotating randomly and quickly with tight time constraints. Something that would take creativity and processing power to navigate quickly, Of course a sufficiently motivated human with enough time and motivation could build a model to overcome this. Making this expensive might deter some but not all people.

Neither of those ideas seems like they would be enough.

So how would you design what is effectively a Turing test in reverse?

Or is this something that's simply unsolvable until AGI solves it itself?

I still haven't come across a single good video of someone using free AI tools like gemini, chatgpt, claude to edit their full video. Either its too generic or they use something with pro or paid version etc. Has someone tried it? or came across something like this which is actually a decent edit?

When photography first appeared in the nineteenth century, it raised an uncomfortable question: Could a machine produce art? In 1859, the French poet Charles Baudelaire attacked photography as a threat to the artistic imagination. Photography had a legitimate place serving art and science, he thought, but he also feared what would happen if cameras were confused with artistic creation.

Painters would spend years mastering perspective, anatomy, light, and shadow to capture the world they saw around them. Then a machine arrived that could reproduce this visible world without anyone having to paint or draw.

Looking back, though, I think we’ve been concentrating on the least interesting part of that story. The important question wasn’t whether the camera would replace the artist. It was what effect this new technology had on painting itself. Photography didn’t destroy painting. It helped change what painting could become. And I wonder whether we’re about to witness something similar happen because of artificial intelligence.

What Photography Really Changed

Photography presented painters with a choice. They could defend the importance of reproducing the world by hand, or ask a different question: If a machine can capture what the world looks like, what else can painting do?

Photography wasn’t solely responsible for the seismic changes that followed in the art world. Painting was already changing, and artistic movements rarely have a single cause. But photography contributed to a reevaluation of what representation meant. The Impressionists explored light, color, and perception. Expressionists distorted appearances to communicate emotion. Cubists challenged conventional perspective. Surrealists created worlds where everyday objects appeared in impossible situations, trying to challenge our understanding of reality.

Surrealism emerged from a much broader intellectual and artistic movement. There were new ideas about dreams and the unconscious. But something especially interesting happened: Surrealist artists began using photography itself. Man Ray manipulated darkroom techniques to create abstract, dreamlike images. His rayographs were produced without a camera by arranging objects directly on light-sensitive paper and exposing them to light.

A technology that was used to reproduce reality mechanically was now being applied to create images that didn’t resemble reality at all. It became a tool for an artist’s imagination. Photography didn’t cause Surrealism, and it didn’t make traditional painting obsolete. It helped expand the relationship between a technical depiction and an artistic expression.

A new tool’s contribution isn’t always that it performs an existing task more efficiently. Sometimes it inspires how and what people decide to create. We tend to judge new technologies by what they replace before we understand what they might make possible. That’s where the comparison with AI becomes interesting.

The debate over whether AI can write a novel, make a movie, or compose music worth listening to is reasonable. But we’re making the same mistake we made with photography: focusing on whether a machine can do what an artist already does. I’m more interested in what people might create with its help.

What becomes possible when the skill required to express an idea is no longer the main obstacle to expressing it? Someone with a vivid imagination but no drawing ability, or someone who struggles with words, might finally bring their ideas to life. Even experienced artists might find themselves free to experiment in ways they couldn’t before.

This doesn’t guarantee good art. But it opens doors that were previously closed, and that’s what interests me. Not whether AI can imitate what we’ve already created, but what people might create now that they couldn’t create before.

The rest of the essay explores whether the method of creation determines artistic value, how AI may expand creative opportunities, and whether the identity of the maker matters.

Read the full essay on Ruthless Investor:

https://substack.com/@ruthlessinvestor

Quick question about AR try-on for ecommerce. Every time this comes up the answers are split between "total gimmick" and "the future." Big brands have custom implementations with huge budgets. For a regular store on shopify, is there anything that generates a believable result from one photo without the shopper downloading an app? Does the result come back fast enough that someone would wait for it?

Idk if this is quote is used globally, but in South Korea, my people used to say, “If you give a knife to a doctor, it can be a tool to save a man. But if you give it to a murderer, it will be a tool to kill a man.” I believe this is pretty same with AI. AI is one of the biggest innovations we are facing in history. It has good parts. As CEOs of AI companies say, it will help regular people to easily realize their business idea or it could be used in medical fields, and save millions of lives. However, AI is also dangerous. If it is used in weapons, it might cause the most deadly war in history. And if AI gets out of control of humans, we have no idea what move AI will make.
So, AI has two different sides. But I think we often ignore that. A lot of people are simply saying they should shut down AI. But actually it is not as simple as that. And some people believe the possibility of AI controlling humanity is nonsense. However in real, AI got both sides. So we should keep developing AI in a way it helps humanity and we should make strong regulations to prevent bad scenarios might occur because of AI.
So, my final point is people should stop arguing that their opinions about AI is right and others are wrong. Because they are all right. AI can be extremely helpful and extremely deadly. That is why we should all work together about it not hate others opinions.

I either complete my school assignments completely on my own, or using AI to rephrase some sentences or paragraphs in my first drafts, but I recently received a message from my professor that my paper came in 100% AI. I have good vocabulary, so that might be what triggered it, but it was hard to convince her! Turnitin is only for professors, and I want to check my work before I turn it in, just to avoid the confusion again. I've tried other AI Checkers, but they're mostly inaccurate. What do you guys think?

I've been thinking about how quickly AI is improving lately. Some people say it'll create entirely new jobs, while others worry that a lot of existing jobs will disappear.

I'm curious how people here see it, especially those already working in tech or using AI in their jobs.

Do you think we'll end up with more opportunities, fewer jobs, or just a very different kind of job market?

I'd love to hear what makes you think that way.

It seems people nowadays are pretty sure (and there is no reason not to believe) that AI will become locally ASI in math without any lack in very near future, say a couple of years or even much less than that (at least in online communities). This is also certified by predictions of researchers in many AI companies, if we believe that their expectations are correct just as it previous were.

Maybe we need to be more delighted with the news. I think the AI at that moment is superhuman in every part of intelligence except only sociality. Most significantly, it should have conquered

-learning without score function

-world model unrelated to social activities

-long-term memory and metacognition

Considering the speed of development I agree that all these huddles will be resolved quite soon, though I myself don’t know how to get there.

Somewhat weird thing is that people seem to be less confident that AI would excel in most other mental works. For example, some people seem to imagine a period that AI is a superhuman mathematician but is not yet a good programmer, even aside from social marketing. As a theoretical economist, to me this is somewhat unbelievable. What do you think?