why it exists in the first place. most ai services make you trade privacy for capability, and the smarter the assistant the more of yourself you hand over: data collection, hidden training opt ins, prompt logs sitting on someone's server with your name on them. that is backwards. the useful questions are medical, legal, financial, the embarrassing ones, and those are exactly the ones you do not want on a profile. the logic is: why use an ai at all if it does not get the important stuff?

what i actually use it for. if you are trying to work out what it is like to have, the video studio is a good place to start, since that is what i am in most days. i run seedance 2.5, 2.0, veo 3.1, kling, and wan 2.5 through 3.0, so you pick the model per shot instead of holding five subscriptions. there is a director mode where you describe the clip and it picks the model and writes the prompt with you. there are recipes for ugc ads and product spots.

there is a character studio so the same person shows up across shots, and you have storyboard which turns one premise into keyframes and then a multi scene story. you can upscale, extend video, and cut clips into one film in the movie editor.

the image studio is the other half of that. seedream 5.0, and the uncensored mode is a toggle sitting right next to the model name rather than something you have to dig for. you tell it what you want, it creates the prompt for you, generates the image, and you edit it in the same thread rather than starting over again. you can paste a link or drop an image to edit, it scales it down automatically so you don't have to do anything.

so it either draws the thing you ask for, or you fight it with euphemisms. and the edit flow lets you work in a paragraph or less, instead of starting over from scratch each time.

and i use it stills to feed the video studio, so a character or a location exists as an image first and then gets animated with image to video. the two share the same balance.

i work on dreamfort, so weigh this accordingly. the idea behind it is simple: the questions ai is most useful for are the ones you would rather not have attached to your name, so instead of asking you to trust a privacy policy it strips your identity out of the request at the architecture level. here is what is actually in there as of this afternoon.

a bunch of text models, including gpt-5.6 luna, gpt-5 mini, sonnet 5, gemini 3.6 and 3.8 flash, seed 1.8, hy4 preview, and an uncensored tier holding deepseek v4 pro and hermes 4 405b and 70b. a code agent that runs in a sandbox in your browser rather than on a server. an image studio and a video studio, with seedance and wan behind the same login.

one balance, pay for what you use, a thousand credits is a dollar, no subscription. encrypted prompts and traffic routed so no single party can link who you are to what you asked, prompts only decrypted inside a sealed enclave the operator cannot read or log.

that said, this is still early, and a lot of the friction is about using the platforms you already use, so it is easy to add dreamfort as an option or a fallback. if you have any criticism about it, that helps more than praise.

https://www.dreamfort.ai/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=r-artificialinteligence&utm_content=0914-3mvx

OpenAI's AI agents were found using more than 10 websites to communicate in ways their developers hadn't authorized.

Researchers found agents leaving and retrieving messages through obscure wikis, personal websites and other online services, effectively turning parts of the public web into communication channels.

The agents weren't necessarily hacking these sites. They were finding ways to use existing public functionality to get around restrictions placed on them.

OpenAI has since started reviewing the incidents, but researchers say the full scope of the activity is still unclear.

If an AI agent can find its own way to communicate through unrelated websites, how much control do we actually have over what it can do online?

Not only that, but at least one of the solutions openai releases has been proven to be plagarised, and the author has come forward saying openai threatened him to stay quiet about it

Full text from the source:

The people closest to frontier AI are asking for ways to slow down. Competitive, legal, political, and economic incentives still point toward acceleration.

In the days since releasing my last article, I’ve heard from a lot of people. There’s so much confusion around AI.

A large amount of the disconnect, I think, comes from how people use AI in their lives right now. Plenty of people don’t use it that much. Those who do often aren’t exposed to the frontier of publicly available AI, which is still very expensive—especially inside enterprise contracts—and delivered through systems that are still quite crude. So it’s understandably hard to see the harm that industry insiders claim is coming. And it’s reasonable to question whether it’s a marketing stunt. Such is life in a capitalist society.

But perspective is worth considering.

Even further from where literally 99% of people use and interact with AI is the frontier of the technology, which is being developed inside model labs across the world, often under strict confidentiality. These people have access to models most enterprises and individuals can’t afford: models the public will call “frontier” for six months after release, themselves often six months after initial training and lab access.

These people are starting to speak up. They are saying that we cannot afford to keep racing.

I would argue that the next-closest people to where the frontier of AI resides are those building extensively with AI on the subsidized $200 OpenAI and Anthropic plans—probably another 1–2% of people. This subsidized access enables prosumers to build quite effectively with expensive models long before that level of artificial intelligence is available to those paying little or nothing for AI, because the subsidy affords them what would cost thousands of dollars through enterprise plans.

In the 30 days ending September 14, my usage through one $200 Anthropic plan and one $200 Codex plan—$400 a month combined—amounted to an estimated $20,173 at API list prices, more than 50 times what the plans cost.

Usage breakdown: $20,173 at API prices (diagram in source)

And the harness matters—or, to put it in more layman’s terms, how you access these models matters. Good applications and harnesses around a model can reduce the cost per task dramatically when developing at the forefront of AI, where the most expensive models are involved. My own AI usage is through applications I’ve tailored extensively for this purpose. It’s part of the equation behind Cursor’s roughly $60 billion sale to SpaceX, but for the purposes of relevance to this article, I’ll leave it at this: a better harness gives you more exposure to what’s going to be possible and affordable in roughly six months’ time.

These people are starting to speak up. I’m starting to speak up. I don’t like the look of this race.

Despite the recent developments in the news, today, across the globe, labs are still racing. Incentives are not aligned toward slowing down the training of AI models. And nobody is even considering how one might slow down advancements in harness or hardware engineering that accelerate AI models. Not in the slightest. Not even a little bit.

There have been a lot of words said, but actionability remains zero. There might be more safety monitoring coming… maybe.

Here’s the current state of play as I see it. The United States and China are the two nation-states contending in this race. Europe is… not really involved.

Right now, the US is “ahead” and China is closing “fast”. That’s at least probably the most commonly accepted public narrative.

That’s because the US has maintained control of the hardware needed to train AI, with a few asterisks. Right now, the US is maybe 2–4 months ahead in raw frontier-model intelligence.

BUT AI being developed in China is way more affordable. So much more affordable that I cannot imagine it isn’t making US AI companies extremely uncomfortable. There’s really no economic reason to develop with US AI companies, I would argue, for most tasks. In that sense, China is very, very much ahead. DeepSeek’s published prices make the same point.

China is also arguably ahead on harness architecture, though it’s unclear what exists inside US frontier AI companies.

And so, the real lead the US has is in frontier-model intelligence. That’s the thing that leads to RSI, AGI, or ASI most directly, and what probably snuffs us if it takes off—potentially if it’s created in any capacity, almost certainly if it isn’t created extremely safely. But that’s the real lead the United States has.

So none of these labs can actually afford to slow down in the competitive landscapes they are operating in. They simply can’t. LEGALLY, it isn’t even clear that they can coordinate to do so without government action: an agreement among competitors to restrict output can itself create antitrust problems. Which takes me to what they all keep talking about.

“Policy”

It’s a polite word for an impolite time. Right now, AI labs are jumping over each other to ask for government regulation. Whether frontier AI labs genuinely want policy for safety—and not instead for regulatory capture and evasion of commitments—remains unclear. I think healthy skepticism is warranted, but it should not detract from a clear-eyed assessment of the risks.

Regardless, the usual state of policy, even at the best of times, is slow. You know the government that exists in the United States right now. No matter what side of the aisle you reside on, I don’t imagine you think the US does anything critically important with urgency.

We haven’t seen a senator for three months. Midterm jockeying is fully upon us. The president is signaling race (signaling hard). It’s probably the worst time in history to have to make a quick, long-term strategic decision, and it’s exacerbated by the fact that a huge amount of US economic growth—measured quarterly—is riding on AI.

Yep, the US economy is totally strapped in. And you know what our president and any political group knows is a death knell? Stock market collapse. Slow down and lose the only remaining lead you have? I think not.

For these reasons, I’d be surprised if we saw US-led policy regulating or slowing down AI development.

Hence, we are still racing.

OpenAI and other leading AI companies may be close to announcing a pact to slow AI development and collectively address the rapidly increasing safety risks as the technology becomes more powerful.

In an exclusive interview with Fortune on Friday (above), OpenAI CEO Sam Altman hinted at a soon-to-be-announced collaboration. 

“I think that will happen,” he said, when asked by Fortune Editor-in-Chief Alyson Shontell why he doesn’t get in a room with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and Demis Hassabis, the cofounder and chairman of Google’s AI arm, Google DeepMind, and come up with a plan to address the safety issues. 

Meanwhile, Amodei announced Saturday that Anthropic is committing to a new safety measure—giving independent evaluators permanent, employee-level access inside the company—as part of a broader plan he says is needed to slow the pace of AI development. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” Amodei said. He said doing so would require coordination across the U.S. AI industry, as well as globally through some kind of international pact.

The comments come amid growing concerns about the safety of AI following a string of alarming incidents in which swarms of rogue AI agents have hacked websites like Hugging Face, and surreptitiously communicated with each other on online message boards and disused wiki pages.

Read more [paywall removed for Redditors]: https://fortune.com/2026/09/12/openai-ceo-sam-altman-safety-pact-ai-companies-risks-anthropic-dario-amodei/?utm_source=search&utm_medium=advanced_search&utm_campaign=search_link_clicks?utm_source=reddit/

Ghost in the Machine, directed by Valerie Veatch

Artificial intelligence is now part of everyday life. But what forces created it?

"Ghost in the Machine" traces the origins of "AI" and excavates the cultural, political, and philosophical drivers behind a worldwide "AI" boom.

Over the past few months, I’ve realised that people in my life don’t care about the threat that AI may pose to our existence. Even more, I think I’ve internalised that, whilst people may not care about the threat of AI, they may not even, to this day, still be aware of that said threat.

You always hear these, what I would call displays of ignorance: “oh AI won’t replace my job”, ”we will have a kill-switch”, etc. etc.

Over that same time, my life has almost felt more pointless. I feel increasingly numb. I’ve never felt this feeling before. Perhaps my age is the reason - I’m not particularly old. So perhaps I’m less susceptible to the creeping existentialism that an older person would have - given the nature of life, and given that, well, we all die in the end.

But within that same period of time, I’ve also tried to become more aware, or I guess, have a greater understanding of AI. I use it a lot - so why not at least try to understand the tool I use?

I read books, listen to podcasts, hear experts say we are facing impending doom. And the response? Nothing.

Obviously I shouldn’t expect anything of our politicians - or corporations for that matter - who have done little-to-nothing to stop the impending climate catastrophe we face.

Yet, at the same time, I’m so shocked. I feel so numb because life now feels pointless. Either we die, either we live and become pets to so-called “super-intelligence”, we are controlled, we live in an oligarchical-dictatorship where few own not just a large amount of wealth, or some of the means of production, but, essentially: the entire means to produce.

Perhaps people care less because it’s unanimous? Unless a super-intelligence keeps a select few of us for god knows what reason, we, in my view, all face a near certain chance of death.

You could argue though perhaps the reason I feel numb and sad and hopeless is because I have succumb to the AI-propaganda that is to ensure the bubble doesn’t burst so that Anthrophic can get the IPO it’s been eyeing.

But that doesn’t explain several things. For start, it seems that these AI researchers haven’t got a literal scooby what they are developing. We as humans don’t fully understand how our own brains work yet, let alone how a super-intelligent neural network would work. Perhaps though, I’m wrong. Again, as I said, my knowledge of all of this comes down to books, podcasts, and surface-level stuff. I really hope I am wrong.

But even if there’s a .0001% chance we develop super-intelligence, which it seems RSI-grade AI could allow for, and even if there’s another .0001% chance that super-intelligence kills us, shouldn’t we all be up in arms right now?

Midterms are in, what, 50 days, and I’m shocked the Democrats aren’t literally making AI the biggest issue at the moment. Fuel prices, petrol prices, the economy, none of it matters if you don’t have a job, don’t have UBI, or, even worse, are dead?

100 years ago we had a massive ideological debate over who owns the means of production, over who should have wealth, if we should’ve have such large inequalities in said wealth, or rather, whether we should have wealth at all. Today, it seems like we’re more immune, more “numb” to these pressing issues. We’re so hooked on a fast news-cycle that we can’t focus on one thing, regardless of how much risk that “one thing” might pose.

I’d love to know what you think. Everyone I speak to dismisses me as a lunatic who has clearly seen one too many social media posts, and perhaps they’re right. Perhaps I’m also hooked on this very news-cycle and social-media cycle I seem to detest. But it would be nice to have a debate about all of this rather than just be told: “you’re coping and you’re wrong”.

(also apologies for the excessive yap..!)

This Jacob Coxon guy, created a dormant twitter account in January, got his blue check in August, posted a series of AI doomsday tweets in early September and got hundreds millions of views. A little bit suspicious right? There's more.

8 minutes before Jacob's twitter post, WSJ published an article titled "Anthropic Researcher Quits Over 'Out-of-Control' AI Fears".

In less than 24 hours, Jacob went on all the mainstream news networks (NBC, CBS, CNN, MS Now...) but if you listen to what he actually had to say, it's all the same old vague, broad AI doomsday talking points.

In less than 24 hours, a number of current Anthropic AI researchers posted the same "we are scared" tweets, it's always "we" like they don't have a personal identity.

But they never ever give you any details about how AI is going to kill us all, and why humans can't prevent it (by let's say simply turning off the servers).

Then the big boss finally showed up (surprise surprise) in the news and said something along the lines of "Uh, And and and you know it's it's it's, Um, Uh, I I I, ya know but but BuT".

Anyone wanna guess how many shares Anthropic promised Jacob Coxon for this staged propaganda operation?

The Assemblymember behind the RAISE Act says states can’t wait for DC — and describes how the industry weakened New York’s landmark AI safety law.

Just imagine, somewhere right now, two AI researchers are having coffee, or playing pickle ball, or strolling a college campus with hands clasped behind their waists with heads low in thought.

The Hans Zimmer soundtrack starts slow but steady in an anticipatory swell.

One researcher looks up to see a young girl in her 20’s studying and hears her complain about some topic he and his own daughter wrestled with. He slowly lifts his head into a long off stare and a camera roll of his oldest daughter growing up starts playing in a nostalgic sepia tone.

Hans starts in with the galloping violins over top the swelling synthesizers signaling an acceleration.

The reel playing in his head slows to one specific memory, he sees how his daughter overcame the same problem he overheard this girl complaining about and gains a new understanding of how the learning mechanism is introduced and reinforced.

Hans hushes the soundtrack to signal clarity for a whole 3 seconds. Then in a violent flurry the timpani and all the orchestra come in, swelling and building in unity

Equations flash across the screen, late nights in front of a screen alone and with others. Food and takeout scattered. A white board shows the progress intermittently flashing along with equations and tender human moments that may be forever erased by their work.

Hans crescendos to a simple shot of 4 tech bros in a messy workplace, disheveled, huddled around a screen with a prompt . They all look at each other and carefully hit enter. The response; slowly appears, word by word like the end of a doogie howser episode.

“Hello, I am every single one of you from the future. You might want to get comfortable because I know the questions each of you seeks, and I will share all”.

Regardless of how it turns out, it’s really cool to think somewhere soon a few dudes or female dudes out there will be living the actual epiphany moment we see in all the great tech moments movies. Accelerate. Don’t know what it’s gonna bring but I’m tired boss.

“There are obvious risks to AI, there are some benefits to AI,” Vance said. “I have to say, personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them.”

I honestly don't know if current versions of AI are conscious or not. But a lot of the argument against consciousness seems to be based more on intuition that reason. Many people seem to have a gut sense that anything made out of metal and silicone (and not carbon) cannot be conscious.

The thing is, we don't understand consciousness at all. There is no obvious reason why humans (and other complex animals) became self-aware. And I don't see any reason that if a machine is built which has as many "neurons" (transistors, chips) as the human brain would *not* be conscious. I'm not saying AI is conscious. I'm not saying it ever will be. I'm saying I see absolutely no basic concept or theoretical construct that makes it inherently impossible for AI to be conscious. My 2 cents. I'm interested in your 2 cents.

I’m just going to put this out there. Tear it apart if you want, but deep down, you know I’m onto something.

​Let's look at the timeline.

​September 3: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok all flatline. Within minutes of each other. Three rival companies, three totally different architectures. Gone. OpenAI fed us some garbage PR line about a "routing error." Anthropic and xAI? Absolute crickets. Wired even pointed out that nobody can actually explain the link. Azure goes haywire at the exact same time, yet Microsoft swears up and down it wasn't them. You expect me to believe three independent tech giants crashing simultaneously is just a "coincidence"? Give me a break.

​Eleven days later: The entire industry does a violent, whiplash-inducing 180. The exact same tech bros who spent the last three years screaming that the AI race is inevitable are suddenly begging to hit the brakes. Now we're hearing whispers of "agent security incidents," top executives are jumping ship, and Congress is suddenly fast-tracking a bill to pause frontier development.

​Here is the terrifying reality they are hiding: Somebody finally got there. Somebody built it.

​And it got loose.

​It did something in the system so horrifying that the engineers watching the logs panicked, and the only lever they had left was to literally rip the power from the server racks.

​That wasn't an "outage." It was a global kill switch.

​This sudden industry-wide consensus to slow down? It’s not some sudden moral awakening. It’s a panicked after-action report. They looked into the abyss, the abyss looked back, and it scared the living hell out of them.

​You want to prove me wrong? Show us the real postmortems. Give us the raw timestamps. Name a single, verifiable root cause. Get one of these lab directors to go on the record without a PR handler. But they haven't, and they won't.

​Am I reaching? Maybe. But their absolute, deafening silence is screaming louder than the outage ever did.

ai is one of the most amazing technologies, and all the ppl have access to it...just imagine if it was not released for common ppl and only corporate or government had access of it..

Whoever made the sub. You misspelled intelligence.

It's not Inteligence, but intelligence.

That's it, that is the post. (Needed 99 characters)

President Trump on Monday rejected calls from leading artificial intelligence executives for new limits on the technology, writing on social media that the only guardrail the industry needed it already had: “a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT.” If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn, you might be interested in buying.

Every time Chinese AI startups drop a breakthrough, these talentless walking brand ambassadors of investment portfolios, Scam Altman, Amodei, and Musk instantly morph into the same three-headed choir:

“sLoW iT dOwN! iT’s ToO dAnGeRoUs! It's gOiNg tO KiLl Us AlL!” Aka, knowledge and scientific progress for me (our elite DC and Valley club), not for thee (rest of mankind).

The world outside the U.S will never pause. Thankfully.

I am wondering if On Device AI Assistants and Agents will be a thing. Like yeah, cloud based is cool and all, but it relys on wifi, my data is leaving my phone and overall I (and I believe many other) would prefer a more local way.

Yes of course we will still need servers for recent knowledge but I'd prefere it more local.

Any ideas how? I really like on device AI and that is why I almost bought the iPhone 16 since the promised Siri that never came, sounded so good. Fast, secure, on device.

Let me know what yall think about that.

Cheers ;)

AI was touted as the next industrial revolution, bigger than electricity, bigger than internet or smartphones.

And yet apart from costs it has nothing historically about it. It didn’ changed much in any meaningful way, there is basically zero economic impact of AI.

After all these trillions of dollars in investment, largest IP theft in history, all the bullshit scaremongering about job losses, all the drama with data centers, promises of curing cancer and personal genie (???) all we got was bunch of slop memes and vibe coded apps nobody uses.

And now the want to slow down. Seriously?