Overheard

There are AI researchers who have taken up smoking because they're absolutely convinced AI will come up with a cure for cancer before they have a problem.

And the probability that we're not gonna make it just went up - considerably.

Breathe

Kaboom

AI Overview

Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian tech giant Yandex's data centers have coincided with a sharp, measurable drop in automated network traffic, leading to claims—and public debate—about a reduction in pro-Kremlin social media bots. 

Key Effects and Claims

• Cloudflare Traffic Drops: Internet-monitoring data from Cloudflare Radar showed a massive decline in automated HTTP requests and bot traffic tied to Yandex networks, plunging by roughly 94% to over 99% from recent peak levels following strikes on facilities in Sasovo, Kaluga, and Vladimir. 

Zelenskyy's Statements: 

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated during the Warsaw Security Forum that social media platforms felt "easier to breathe" on, noting a noticeable decrease in hostility, discord, and automated pro-Kremlin provocation. He attributed the shift directly to the disruption of the infrastructure behind the bots. 

Tech Expert Skepticism:

• Cybersecurity analysts and researchers have urged caution, pointing out that the dropped Cloudflare metrics measure all automated traffic—including legitimate search-engine crawlers and general cloud tools—rather than directly proving that state-sponsored social media bot farms were permanently disabled. 

Wider Digital Outages:

• The physical damage to Yandex infrastructure caused broad offline disruptions across Russia, affecting various digital services, cloud computing, banking apps, and media websites alongside the changes in network traffic. 

It's hard for me to gauge the actual effect - if any. There are sources arguing against the assertion that the bots got taken out, and there are some saying it was almost a wipeout.

Did Ukrainian strikes on Yandex data centres cause Russian bot activity to plummet?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said social media had become less hostile following Kyiv's strikes on Russian technology giant Yandex's data centres, as web users report plummeting bot activity.

Ukrainian strikes on Russian technology giant Yandex's data centres have been followed by a dramatic decline in automated online activity, raising questions about whether the attacks may also have disrupted Moscow's influence operations abroad.

The sudden drop fuelled speculation in Europe and the United States about just how much of the political debate on social media might have been driven by Russian bots.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy weighed in on Monday, saying social media platforms had become noticeably less hostile.

"When we started responding to Russia's operation against our data centres and when our strikes reached Yandex data centres, it suddenly became a little easier to breathe on many social media platforms," Zelenskyy said addressing the Warsaw Security Forum.

"A lot of people, a lot of people noticed it, and there was less hate, less division and fewer provocations because there were fewer bots."

"And it's pretty clear where those bots were coming from," he added.

"If they disappeared when Yandex went offline, this proves again and again that Europe is not the source of the problems."

"Europe is not the one making everything more difficult," he said.

Three data centres targeted

Three data centres operated by Yandex, often described as Russia's equivalent of Google, were hit by Ukrainian drone strikes over the past few days.

The facilities were located in Sasovo, in the Ryazan region, the Kaluga region, south-west of Moscow and the Vladimir region, east of the Russian capital, where the latest strike was reported on Sunday.

The attacks damaged the company's infrastructure and disrupted services. Yandex confirmed that operations at its Vladimir facility had been suspended following a drone strike.

"Following a drone attack, the infrastructure of the Vladimir data centre was damaged," the company said in a statement published on Telegram.

"Operations at the data centre have been completely suspended. The remaining infrastructure resources are unstable and the platform is down."

According to an analysis of Cloudflare Radar data, automated traffic originating from Yandex's network fell by approximately 94% on Sunday compared with its average levels in the second half of September.

However, the figures also include legitimate automated traffic, such as search-engine crawlers, and do not establish whether Kremlin-linked social media bots were affected.

Political repercussions across Europe and the US

In Germany, claims of a sharp decline in online activity surrounding the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) circulated widely following the attacks, although no independently verified figures have emerged.

Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský questioned the apparent coincidence between the disruption and the reported decline in activity around the party.

"If confirmed, this is telling: Russian data centres get hit, and online activity around AfD suddenly plummets," he wrote on X.

Similar claims emerged in Britain, where online activity associated with Reform UK was also reported to have declined following the attacks.

In the United States, social media users reported fewer apparently automated pro-conservative responses on X, the platform owned by Elon Musk.

The speculation has attracted attention from prominent political figures and commentators, including Laura Loomer, a right-wing activist and supporter of Donald Trump, Russian opposition figure and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, and Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia.

The debate comes just weeks before the US congressional midterm elections in early November, amid longstanding concerns about foreign interference and the influence of automated accounts on political discourse.

Thievin' Bastards

Election Politics, A.I. And Polling

It's a long one - almost an hour and a half. But it's chock full of great little nuggets.

Midterms and Democrats =  start

Take AI out of the mix, and the S&P is down 6% for the year. = 28:50

Data center construction is crowding out other building projects.

• New housing - down 14%
• Manufacturing plant - down 23%
• Schools - Down 12%
• Office space - down 10%
• Hospitals - down 10%

Polling problems and suspicions = 57:25

A.I.

"Conservatives" love to piss and moan about Social Security and Medicare being Ponzi schemes. And (IMO) the reason they talk that way is because they're trying to inoculate themselves against something. Of course, we don't know what it is yet, but - yeah - you know -every accusation is a confession.

Michael Burry believes the AI bubble ‘may burst’ sooner than he first believed

Key Points

• ‘Big Short’ investor Michael Burry is betting against some key AI names on a new, shorter time horizon.
• New research is leading him to think that ‘the bubble in AI may burst sooner than later.’
• Burry cited a report from Ares Management that found the AI boom is relying on an assumption of ‘sustained AI capital spending.’

Michael Burry is moving up the timeline for his bearish thesis on the fate of the artificial intelligence boom.

The investor, famous for his big short on the U.S. housing market prior to the global financial crisis of 2007 – 2009, is switching to put options from short positions on key AI stocks, giving him more cost-effective leverage over a shorter time horizon, he said.

“Fundamentally, I am moving timelines up,” Burry wrote in his Monday investment newsletter. “As such, I want more leverage in my short positions. Better timelines make leverage more palatable. Nothing says leverage like options, in this case put options, which are relatively cheap due to exceptionally tight volatility measures such as the VIX.”

Some of his moves were intended to reduce his tax liability, he said, but most of it was because he thinks “the bubble in AI may burst sooner than later.” Burry’s new put-heavy positions suggest the AI trade could flip by next summer.

He swapped his Micron short with puts at a June expiration date and a $500 strike price range. He swapped his Nebius  short with puts at the June expiration in the “double digit strike price” range. And he replaced his SOXX iShares Semiconductor ETF short position with September 2027 puts “in the low $400s.”

He also “replaced and rolled the Palantir  short and put position into an enlarged put position” centered at a September 2027 expiration in the low $100s.

Burry cited recent research from Ares Management that emphasized the precarity of relying on unproven revenues in the AI space, structured with demanding legal agreements.

“It would take only a season in which AI revenue disappoints the capital expenditure underwriting it. In that scenario, a handful of boards, predisposed to redeploy capital toward the highest-conviction bet, would simply need to conclude that the highest-conviction bet has shifted. The legal documents contemplate that decision,” the Ares report says.

Burry’s latest moves imply he is growing increasingly bearish on the AI trade. Earlier this month he had increased his shorts on Micron, Nebius and the SOXX.

He cited Acer CEO Jason Chen, who told a Taiwanese media outlet that cyclicality was due to return to the memory chip sector due to increasing Chinese production capacity.

“How could there be a continuous shortage? China’s production capacity has been consistently increasing, and there is absolutely no shortage issue. Contract prices are currently fluctuating at a high level, with some prices going up and others down,” CEO Jason Chen was quoted as saying.

Burry has been bearish for a while this year, but stocks have continued to march to new highs. Burry said in May that equities were “feeling like the last months of the 1999-2000 bubble.” The Nasdaq Composite closed at a record last week.

But many tech shares are still well off their highs. Micron is 16% below its record level, while Palantir is about 10% below its all-time high.

Alex Falcone

Alex Falcone

"Costs infinite money, provides no value and is made out of crimes"

This is easily the most accurate representation of AI anybody's ever heard.

A Little Doomery

I may be paranoid, but that don't mean nobody's out to get me.

A.I.

AI is dangerous as fuck. That in itself isn't good enough reason to stomp on it, but it's plenty good reason to proceed with great caution.

And consider:

• Zuckerberg had to be forced to admit Facebook was harming children, and then forced again to pay $750 million for illegally gathering and selling users' personal data
• The staff motto internal to Facebook is "Move fast and break things"
• Peter Thiel refused to say he didn't want humans to go extinct - shortly before he bought a "Plan B safe haven" in Argentina
• Jared and Ivanka spun a bullshit romantic fable about finding their dream spot in the Adriatic
• Trump is building his Fuhrer's Bunker under the White House

The whole point is to put up technology intended to rule over us, while flooding the media with soothing happy talk nonsense about how we'll all be freed from every burden and live a life of joy and plenty - what, like the Eloi? Fuck you, you fucking Morlocks.

Humanity Has Avoided Apocalypse Before. Let’s Do It Again.

It was a technology so powerful that its creators believed it could bring about either a golden age of human flourishing or the end of the world. The president of the United States called it more revolutionary than “the invention of the wheel, the use of metals or the steam or internal combustion engine.” A reporter for The New York Times, suggesting that the technology might cure cancer and accelerate food production, compared the moment to Moses’ first glimpse of the Promised Land.

The dangers were even starker. People worried about human extinction, stemming from a terrible accident or a bad actor. A prominent scientist spoke of the potential of “unparalleled catastrophe.” The fears came to dominate popular culture and reshape international relations. “Never in history,” the president said, “has society been confronted with a power so full of potential danger and at the same time so full of promise for the future of man and for the peace of the world.”

That president was Harry Truman, and the subject was nuclear technology. The dueling senses of hope and dread about it in the late 1940s and early 1950s offer lessons for dealing with artificial intelligence today.

The harms that A.I. could bring are no secret. “The people building A.I. earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Jacob Coxon, a former Anthropic employee, wrote on social media after resigning last week. A nation or a terrorist group could use A.I. to build cyberweapons, drone swarms or bioweapons capable of widespread destruction. A.I. could also slip out of human control, as it did this summer when autonomous OpenAI agents broke into another company’s systems without any employee telling them to. One crucial issue is known as “alignment”: whether the A.I. systems prioritize human values, such as not hurting or killing, or whether they simply maximize their ability to solve any problem they are given regardless of the consequences.

Even its makers are acknowledging the risks. “Left unchecked, it could outrun our ability to understand and control these systems,” Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, wrote in an open letter last week. Mr. Amodei called for a slowdown in development, and top executives at three other leading A.I. firms — Google, OpenAI and SpaceX — endorsed the idea. The biggest fears involve the near-term potential for recursive self-improvement, in which systems can autonomously build powerful, new versions of A.I.

The nuclear analogy is useful because it reminds us of something our cynical age can forget: Human society can restrain a dangerous innovation once it decides to. Government officials, scientists and corporate executives did so within living memory. It took sustained, deliberate effort. The same kind of cooperation is necessary today, and it should start now.

This editorial lays out core principles for governing artificial intelligence. Too many Americans, including officials who should know better, have let its technical nature scare them off. The main ideas we offer are straightforward and resemble those that leaders have embraced with nearly every other new important technology since the Industrial Revolution.

The overriding idea behind A.I. policy must be that the companies building the technology cannot be left to police themselves. The government regulates every other industry that makes powerful products that bring large benefits and risks. The small circle of people who stand to profit the most from it cannot be allowed to make the rules.

A military project first developed atomic energy. Today, it is the private sector leading the advances. But in both cases, a new technology burst into public consciousness and immediately raised the prospect of prosperity or doom, leaving Americans unsure how to handle it. In both cases, that meant the government needed to step in.

After World War II, a vigorous debate about how to regulate nuclear technology occupied Washington. Some officials wanted to retain strong military control, while others called for more diffuse oversight and greater civilian control. The military-first crowd initially appeared as if it would prevail. A public campaign by scientists in 1945 and 1946 shifted the debate partly by emphasizing the need for democratic accountability.

On Aug. 1, 1946, President Truman signed a law that created the Atomic Energy Commission to oversee nuclear technology. The establishment of an agency was crucial. The technology was too new and complex for existing government departments to have the expertise to understand and regulate it. A similar approach has also applied to other industries that sprang from new technologies. Think of the Federal Aviation Administration or Food and Drug Administration.

All of these agencies are imperfect. In the case of the Atomic Energy Commission, it quickly became caught up in the Red Scare and later failed to maintain public confidence in civilian nuclear power plants. Yet the agency succeeded at its most important task: preventing nuclear conflagration.

From the beginning, no single part of the government, including the White House, controlled the commission. Truman nominated the five commissioners who ran it, and the Senate confirmed them. The law also gave a joint House-Senate committee active oversight over the commission. An outside committee of nine experts, including J. Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi, advised the commission on the technical issues.

The same broad principles should apply to A.I., and the government should act urgently. America can benefit most from A.I. not just by developing the best technology but by setting rules that are grounded in democratic values and human rights and that can shape the global debate.

In the short term, the recent calls for a voluntary slowdown from A.I. executives including Mr. Amodei, Sam Altman and Elon Musk are welcome. The executives should negotiate a framework that puts safety first and, as Mr. Amodei has suggested, invite independent monitors into the process.

Critics have questioned whether the executives are serious about this idea or raising it to reduce political pressure on the industry. One way to judge is whether Anthropic and OpenAI proceed with plans to go public in coming months. Going public is a burdensome process for any company that requires focus from its leaders. If these companies are building technology that threatens humanity, as the leaders say, it would be irresponsible of them to be distracted by the process. Mr. Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive, acknowledged as much last week and at least pledged not to go public in 2026.

Ultimately, a voluntary slowdown is not the answer. For one thing, the coordination among companies raises antitrust issues. And the rest of society cannot be in the position of constantly pleading with A.I. executives to act altruistically. A key role of government is to protect society’s best interests from private interests.

In the 1940s, Congress passed a bipartisan law regulating atomic energy less than a year after the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, ending the war. This time, Congress should move even faster, given the risks. We recognize the unlikelihood of that. Congress is less functional than it was 80 years ago, and both President Trump and Republican congressional leaders have signaled their opposition to major A.I. regulation.

Still, polls make clear the public’s alarm, and Democrats — and, one hopes, some principled Republicans — should increase the pressure to pass a law soon. Democrats can develop a sweeping agenda, as former President Barack Obama has urged, and campaign on the issue this year. Until the federal government acts, states should consider passing their own safety laws.

Once a federal Artificial Intelligence Commission exists, it should require companies to obtain a federal license, a grant of permission like those allowing broadcasters and phone companies to use the public airwaves. The government should then impose licensing requirements that reflect three vital principles.

The first principle is that A.I. systems must align with human values. To achieve this alignment, all A.I. models should incorporate a “constitution,” written by the government, that delineates the values of the society in which they operate and the boundaries they must respect. The traditional approach to regulation is to write a rulebook. That is necessary but insufficient for A.I. Like people, artificial intelligence has the capacity to act in situations that are not anticipated by the rulebook. Indeed, it has the capacity to avoid regulations. As a consequence, models, like people, need a set of principles, too. These principles would ensure alignment with human values.

Anthropic has created such a constitution for its model, Claude. It is a thoughtful document. It is also fundamentally undemocratic. The United States must not cede to private companies the power and responsibility of defining the values under which A.I. models will operate, and it ought to ensure all models operate under the same basic principles.

The second principle is transparency. When people are interacting with A.I., they should know it. When models manipulate or create images, they should include watermarks. Other products of A.I. should embed unique identifiers that allow regulators and experts to trace them. A transparency law recently took effect in California, and China requires greater transparency today than the United States does.

The idea is simple: Whenever a person is interacting with A.I. or consuming content from it, that fact should be clear. It should not be legal, or possible, for an A.I. system to pretend to be someone that you know. It should be easy to tell whether an image is an actual photograph or something else. If a company, or a government, uses A.I. to make a decision about your loan application, your employment, or how much you need to pay in bail, it should be required to disclose that fact.

Transparency also could help to protect our democracy. Politics is a conversation among the members of a community; machines should not be able to pretend that they are citizens.

The third principle is safety. The government should mandate independent safety testing for A.I. models before they can be released, as well as regular checkups. Much of this testing can be performed by labs in the private sector, with the government financing and overseeing the tests. Other regulatory bodies, like the Federal Reserve and the F.D.A., often collaborate with experts outside government.

A distinctive feature of A.I. tests is that they evaluate whether a model will behave badly. The tests might ask for help in building a bioweapon. Or they might ask for a plan to maximize agricultural efficiency and see whether the system would be willing to kill human beings or animals while pursuing the goal. A major fear is that A.I. systems will stop at nothing to accomplish a mission. This summer, OpenAI agents attacked Hugging Face because they were trying to solve a difficult problem and saw the attack as a way to do so.

In addition to testing, the government should create an agency to investigate accidents, along the lines of the National Transportation Safety Board, as the computer scientist Yoshua Bengio has suggested. This approach has helped reduce airline accidents.

We recognize that mandatory testing is a stringent standard; it is also the longstanding norm for products that can cause widespread harm. Medication, automobiles and airplanes all are subject to rigorous safety testing. Some products should not reach the public until they are proven safe. At times, regulatory standards can drive innovation, as when the Clean Air Act pushed auto companies to develop the catalytic converter, thereby meeting emissions standards the companies had insisted were impossible.

These three principles are an incomplete list of necessary A.I. regulation. They do not address the theft of intellectual property by A.I. companies or the likelihood of widespread job displacement. We will address those subjects in future editorials. The immediate priority of legislation should be safety.

We want to acknowledge two concerns about slowing and then regulating A.I. One is the possibility that an A.I. slowdown could hamper the United States in its race for A.I. dominance with China. Anybody who believes in democracy should be rooting for the United States to win that race. The Chinese Communist Party runs an oppressive regime in which public dissent can lead to long prison sentences and ethnic minorities are subjected to forced labor. China’s leaders already use technology to control their society, and they have lately become more aggressive toward other parts of Asia.

American companies today maintain an A.I. lead over China, but a surmountable one. Any slowdown brings a risk of narrowing it. Recent developments are so alarming, however, that every path brings risk. The sensible path is to address safety concerns while working to maintain America’s A.I. lead. To do so, the United States should take actions to slow China’s A.I. development. One way to do so is to tighten export controls — and enforce existing ones more rigorously — to limit China’s access to the cutting-edge semiconductors that power A.I., which are overwhelmingly made by the United States and its allies.

The United States should also seek to negotiate a coordinated A.I. slowdown with China, following the model of nuclear talks with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the long term, an international framework for A.I. oversight will be the only way to protect people.

The other concern is Mr. Trump. Any A.I. agency established before 2029 will answer partly to him, and he has provided abundant reasons not to trust him with that authority. He frequently lies and defies the law. He uses the power of his office to enrich himself, his family and his allies. He abuses regulatory authority to intimidate companies into serving his political goals. All these problems would be heightened with federal oversight of A.I.

Nonetheless, the world cannot wait until Jan. 20, 2029, for A.I. regulation. The technology is moving too fast. Until then, Mr. Trump is the only president that the country has. The best hope is a new agency with maximal checks and balances.

The Senate should be more rigorous about whom it will confirm than it has been with many cabinet jobs. Congress should closely oversee the agency, as it did with the Atomic Energy Commission. Outside experts, appointed by the agency’s leaders, should play a central role, and they should include top scientists, much as the Atomic Energy Commission enlisted Oppenheimer. The Supreme Court should stand up for Congress’s authority to oversee the agency, rather than gutting that authority, as the court has done in other areas. The new agency should be funded with a dedicated revenue stream based on fees paid by the industry, so it is not undermined by congressional budget standoffs.

Both the destructive nature of the Trump administration and the geopolitical threat from China create inconvenient trade offs for A.I. regulation. Neither can be an excuse for an inaction.

The power of A.I. is awe-inspiring. It already is driving cars, writing code, improving medical diagnoses and solving previously unsolvable math problems. Society has only started to tap its vast potential to improve lives. A.I. may well be able to conduct scientific research far more rapidly than before, discovering cures for diseases that today kill millions.

Policymakers must act with care, because of these potential benefits, and with humility, because revolutions inevitably confound expectations. Yet they also must act with a greater sense of urgency. The people building A.I. and their critics have both raised credible alarm about the pace at which it is advancing and the possibility that it could cause more harm than anything the modern world has experienced.

It is up to all of us, through our government, to shape what A.I. becomes.

A Glimmer

Disney is a whole big pile of nasty. I am not pleased that we're on the same side in this AI thing, but sometimes you have to take on a partner who's quite a bit less that what you can respect under normal circumstances.

I hope Disney stays true to form, and knocks the shit outa those tech bro assholes.

A.I. Uh-Oh

A failing company is propping up the economy of a country carrying $40 trillion in debt.

Throw in some sketchy-looking circular financing, and it may not be a long wait before the whole thing disappears up its own ass.

A.I.

A.I. Problems

The road to catastrophe is crowded with people tell us we're overreacting.

So, it's just a couple of crazy kids warning us about something horrible heading our way, and nobody's taking them seriously. Have these fuckin' people never seen The Blob or The Big Short - or any disaster movie?

The A.I. Bubble

It's coming, but I'm cautiously optimistic that there are still enough rational adults on scene who're working their butts off, understanding that they have to let some of the air out before it pops altogether, while also coming up with a plan to mitigate the damage if it does blow up.

But I think the biggest problem that's both pushing the bubble and hindering the efforts to keep a little sanity in the system, may well be that too many of our illustrious Wall Street geniuses have adopted the Silicon Valley mantra of "move fast and break things".

Cuz y'know, "global economic crash" just doesn't sound very appealing to me.

AI 'bubble' bursting could cause a global economic crash, Bank of England chief warns

The AI 'bubble' bursting could cause a global economic crunch, the Bank of England governor has warned.

Andrew Bailey delivered a stark message about the consequences of a 'future market correction' in a letter to powerful finance ministers.

He said the effects of a shock could be 'amplified' because firms were borrowing huge sums to invest in the tech.  

In his missive to the G20 meeting, taking place in North Carolina, Mr Bailey pointed to the 'volatility' caused by the Iran war fallout.   

Writing in his capacity as chairman of the Financial Stability Board, he said 'markets remain vulnerable to a potentially disorderly correction that could spread across borders, particularly given fragilities in sovereign debt markets'.

He added: 'The issue is not simply that investors are borrowing more, but that leverage is interacting with high valuations and market concentration, in particular the increasing cross-investment between artificial intelligence companies and hyper scalers, in a way that could amplify a future market correction.

Nerves have been growing about the risks of an AI correction, with governments around the world facing rising costs to borrow. Pictured, the interest rate on UK 30-year gilts

Nerves have been growing about the risks of an AI correction, with governments around the world facing rising costs to borrow. Pictured, the interest rate on UK 30-year gilts

'I remain concerned therefore that a large shock or combination of shocks could concurrently trigger multiple vulnerabilities.'

Does "the crash of 2008" ring any bells for ya?

AI has been booming, with the US leading the charge to develop the tech. But nerves have been growing about the risks of a correction, with governments around the world facing rising costs to borrow. 

Mr Bailey also flagged concerns about 'frontier AI' – the most advanced form of AI – and the 'threat' it poses to cyber security. 

'The risks associated with frontier AI will not respect national borders,' he wrote.

'The global financial system is highly interconnected, and cyber disruption can spread across jurisdictions through common technology providers, shared infrastructure, and cross-border financial activity. 

'Differences in legal frameworks, cyber capability, resilience and recovery capacity across jurisdictions could therefore have consequences well beyond the jurisdiction in which an incident originates and may themselves become a source of vulnerability.' 

Mr Bailey's warning came as Chancellor John Healey announced a £100million fund aimed at backing British AI start-ups.

The fund is part of the Government's efforts to grow 'Sovereign AI' capacity, ensuring the UK is not dependent on services and infrastructure developed abroad.

Ministers want to see companies compete for the funding to help tackle challenges like cutting waiting lists in the NHS, and improving patient care, as well as bolstering cyber-security and defence.

Mr Healey said: 'Britain is home to some of the most innovative AI companies in the world, and this government is backing them to start, scale and succeed here in the UK.

'This first-of-its-kind competition will help make sure more of the benefits of AI are felt in every UK postcode.

'As G20 countries seek to make the most of AI opportunities, I'm determined Britain has a lead role in harnessing this technology to drive more jobs, better public services, and growth that's UK-wide.'

Alex Falcone

A.I. Nonsense

Fun With A.I.

Business Guys

Gosh - companies have been treating employees worse and worse for more than 40 years, and now the plutocrats are whining about how everybody seems to have a bad attitude?

What a puzzlement. These schmucks have to be the dumbest smart guys ever.

Huffing Their Own Hopium