> I don’t want to give up my brain and become lazy and not think for myself anymore.
My brain gets sharper with working with AI, but then again, it often seems covertly foolish to me, so I argue with it a lot and plan more before working with it.
I find that I either argue, or work to improve my prompt, or architect a project instead of a prompt for the current and similar scenarios. Otherwise, Claude 4.6 extended thinking always seems like little more than "logic window dressing". And other and previous AIs even more so.
Part of what makes AI useful to me is getting though the layers of "what the hell is this, exactly" that slow you down when you jump more than one level beyond your domain knowledge. I think every knowledge container (document, website, what have you) should have a "what the hell is this" link /rich tooltip /accordion section /whatever by default.
Of course, AI explanations often also fail at this unless you give them "ELI5" or other relevant prompting (I'm looking at you Perplexity).
I like the framing of trying explosive things to escape the pull of gravity. When applied to rockets, it means a lot of stuff blowing up, which again seems apt.
But I'm not sure we would even notice nowadays. It used to be a disaster that could take people's attention for years, but currently, it may get lost in the noise.
I think you're being downvoted for speaking of a complex future possibility ("robots and intelligent machines ... solution") as if it was a proven commodity. There will be many twists and turns in the path to the possible reliability, scalability, and cost effectiveness of robots and intelligent machines.
Appreciate your effort to provide reference info. Near the end it says "part of SoftBank’s efforts to implement robotic automation at [one] Data Center scheduled to start operating [no later than April 1 2027]".
They literally speak of preparing for a future that does not yet exist. I am optimistic it will exist, but that's not the same thing as it already happening and having a track record of reliability and profitability. I could find no mention of robots actually doing anything at that link. The article is about prepping servers, not specifically about robotics, in the same sense that planning hoses for gas pumps at gas stations is not about building cars.
But the discussion is about the safety of systems being actively implemented. For now, people are required to maintain data centers. Right now, these centers are transitioning to high voltage DC. Right now the best attempts at fully automated data centers are in progress with unverified status. So, for now we need to keep the humans safe. Future data centers not needing humans doesn't keep the current humans safe. Thus, optimistic future speculation is off topic and not relevant to the discussion of human safety with high voltages.
People are tired of off topic speculation masquerading as relevant to real world problem solving. It's not a hate boner.
EDIT: expanded to make it clearer why I believe the speculation to be wildly off topic for this particular thread.
He's a PR professional who has literally worked for AI companies, and it feels more like he's chasing newsletter engagement than making a coherent argument. The agitated ranting definitely overshadows the rest.
Hidden profiteering off ill-gotten gains happens continously. In some areas it becomes more known or suspected, but because beheadings and such are very far outside the Overton Window that is mostly controlled by the media, the focus of society moves on as the media directs.
My brain gets sharper with working with AI, but then again, it often seems covertly foolish to me, so I argue with it a lot and plan more before working with it.
reply