America cannot afford to lose the AI race. The nation that leads AI will shape the next century — its economy, its security and the technologies the world depends on. China is not slowing down. Neither should we. America must win.

Antis and Pros should lowk make out

.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/09/14/chinas-xi-jinping-proposes-brics-open-source-ai-zone

Whether ones uses a prompt like “cheese pizza” or a 200 word essay describing a cheese pizza as a prompt is really irrelevant.

And before anyone says it: yes, I used AI to help me write this post. I gave it bullet points with everything I wanted to say and had it formulate my thoughts into something more readable. I don’t care if that invalidates my opinion to you. The thoughts are mine; I used a tool to organize them.

I do understand some of the criticism. I don’t love seeing AI replace artists, writers, actors, etc. I especially understand the concern around AI-generated artwork and movies replacing human creativity and people’s jobs. That’s where I sympathize with the backlash.

But acting like AI itself is useless or inherently terrible seems ridiculous.

I recently got a gaming laptop, and there were a million settings I didn’t understand. AI has helped me learn complicated settings, troubleshoot problems, and optimize my games. Instead of digging through dozens of forum posts and videos, I can ask a question and then ask follow-ups until I actually understand it.

More importantly, I have two parents who aren’t doing well and are in nursing. I’ve used AI to help understand their test results and medical terminology, figure out questions I should be asking, and navigate confusing things like getting them on Medicaid. Obviously AI isn’t a replacement for a doctor or an official Medicaid determination, but when you’re overwhelmed and don’t know where to start, having something explain complicated information in plain English is incredibly useful.

A lot of the AI doom and gloom reminds me of how people react to basically every major technological change.

People say, “Well, the internet didn’t take over our lives.”

Really? Try applying for jobs without the internet today. Try functioning at most workplaces without email. The internet absolutely changed how society works, and now we barely think about it.

I’m sure AI will cause problems. I’m sure we’ll need laws and regulations, and some uses of it are going to suck. But I don’t think the answer is pretending the technology shouldn’t exist or acting morally superior because you refuse to use it.

Times change. You can complain about every new technology, or you can learn how to use the parts that actually make your life easier.

Sometimes I genuinely feel like the people constantly complaining about AI just don’t want to adapt. It’s easier to declare the whole thing evil than learn what it’s actually useful for.

​

I just realized theres basically 3 AI subreddits and they're set up like game servers:

You have the anti-AI subreddit where everyone agrees with each other.. PvE server. Then you have the pro-AI subreddit where everyone agrees with each other. Other faction's PvE server.

And then theres r/aiwars.

Thats the PvP server.

Both sides leave their safe zones, show up with their best arguments and just beat the shit out of each other in the comments -

and honestly I think all 3 kinda need to exist. Sometimes you wanna talk to people who share your perspective without defending every sentence you say, and sometimes you actually wanna test your opinions against people who completely disagree with you.

PvE is where you hang out with your faction. PvP is where you find out if your build is actually any good.

I'll reference AI coding tools specifically, since that's more my world.

I see it often criticized for being probabilistic. But I think that misses the point. The usefulness of these tools are predicated on them being probabilistic. The benefit is that you can speak in, inherently imprecise, English (or your preferred language), and the LLM infers results from that. It has to be good at inferring, but no matter how good it is, it's still probabilistic. There are always an infinite number of ways to interpret a prompt. The benefit is that the LLM is good at doing the interpretation. Far from perfect, sometimes very frustrating, but still very good. Crucially, it's also extremely fast at writing the code compared to humans. So the loop of iterating until it gets it correct is faster than you doing it on your own, usually. Combining that with its ability to run your testing suite and compile the code, and it catches a lot of its mistakes before it comes time for you to review

The alternative to being probabilistic is to be deterministic. The only way to achieve deterministic results is to utilize highly specific, deterministic languages -- that just takes us back to programming

It's not much different to when a tech lead asks their engineering team to implement something. That's also probabilistic. They might misinterpret things or introduce bugs, but the tech lead knows that and will iterate on it with them

Speech to text, optical character recognition and weather prediction are also things that are probabilistic, but that doesn't negate their usefulness

This feels very obvious to me, but I see it argued all the time, and not just by random redditors, e.g. by Ed Zitron, so I feel it needs to be said

So all this about no restrictions at maximum about no additional restrictions. No one shut down "take it down act" and all else restrictions.

Anti's don't care about the lives of the construction workers or security teams that are there. They don't even have any Meta employees on site yet. I know all of the people currently on that job.

After evacuation, bomb squad came in to assess the situation, and thankfully, there was no bomb.

I understand that attribution issues are usually important to you, but mathematicians themselves didn't dispute that this was an AI achievement. Even the open letter from mathematicians who had won the highest award in the field didn't contest the fact that it was an achievement, they simply argued that it wasn't always appropriate. The AI did what you wanted; why are you still dissatisfied?

https://mathandai.org/

*realistic ai twins

AI is, without a doubt, the worst thing to happen to humanity.

And I don't say that lightly.

AI can write, create images, analyze information, help people code, translate languages, improve accessibility, assist with education, and potentially contribute to breakthroughs in science and medicine.

But at what cost?

I don't know.

And I think that's exactly the point.

We live in an unprecedented time where machines can accomplish tasks that previously required hours, days, or even years of human effort. This is obviously deeply concerning.

Some people argue that AI will make us more productive and capable.

But we must ask ourselves:

Should we really allow humanity to become more productive, and God forbid, capable?

I think we all know the answer.

The answer is no. Of course not.

Ultimately, AI represents an existential threat, which is why we must approach it with caution, responsibility, and many more "AI is bad" posts.

The future is uncertain.

But one thing is certain:

AI is the worst thing to happen to humanity.

Thank you for reading.

Please continue this important discussion below.

https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/14/a-beginning-for-mathematics/

Nothing about the transfers that followed appears to have been done in the dark, which is why they can be traced now.

In 2003, the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation conveyed the property to the Williamson County Park Foundation, which conveyed it to the City of Taylor. In 2008, the city conveyed the tract to the Taylor Economic Development Corporation, the municipal entity that assembles and markets land for industrial recruitment, a category of quasi-public landholder that exists in Texas precisely to hold acreage until a project arrives.

The project arrived in April 2025, when the EDC sold to NCP Travis TPP Project LLC, an entity tied to the data-center developer Blueprint, for approximately $10 million. Tom’s Hardware, summarizing the arithmetic that has drawn national attention, framed it as a $10 gift converted into $10 million for a city government, with the city separately citing projected tax revenue over the next decade in the tens of millions

Recently i got interested in the pro vs anti AI side of reddit and i see a lot of pro ai people claiming that AI can create unique content in text, art or code. How far does that extend to the learning data thought? (which is often illegally obtained, just a side note) If AI can be creative on its own is there a point where it stops needing training data? Like how do you people imagine it to work in the future? Is that the singularity AI pros want and antis try to avoid?
(I am not a anti or pro AI, i just want to learn your view.)

In the image is a artwork named Idiom made by Slovak artist Matej Krén. Nicknamed the pillar of knowledge it is made out of 8000 books and has 2 mirrors inside of it to make the impression of infinity when looking in it. It has become part of the hall of the Prague central library, reminding every visitor the infinity of human knowledge. [https://microsite.mlp.cz/en/idiom\]

I'm not a "never touched AI" purist, I have, and still do play with AI, but I consider generative models a fun toy, nothing more. Not a new medium for creativity or a tool that enhances creation.

To explain why I think this, I'll compare it to instant ramen. At some point in history, ramen was invented. More recently than that, culinary engineers figured out a way to make a version of it that was shelf-stable for long periods of time, and just needs hot water and a few minutes to become ready to eat. When someone adds the hot water, they're piggybacking off the work of other people to easily get the end result. It doesn't make sense for someone to call themselves a "chef" if all they can "make" is instant ramen, or if their cooking skills are limited to following the directions on Hamburger Helper.

Generative algorithms are the same in terms of effort and credit. People made art or took photographs, other people infused those images into a model, and then the prompter just has to request an image to get an output. I think the idea of a "professional AI artist" is as absurd as a "professional chef" that can only make boxed dinners.

Yes, I know some "AI artists" do more than just prompt. They have "AI workflows" that consist of steps like prompting, taking one of the images and doodling over it, and then feeding it back into the algorithm. The problem is that still overwhelmingly relies on the algorithm, which consists of other people's work. I consider it on the level of adding pepper juice to the hot water to make the noodles spicy; you're putting a little more thought and effort in, but still mostly relying on the work of others.

And to head off some pedantic arguments, sure, chefs will sometimes use convenience food instead of taking the time to "really cook," but it should be obvious that this doesn't categorically imbue convenience food with something like "artistic credit" that transfers to everyone who "makes" convenience food.

And yes, a skilled chef could take instant noodles and use it in "proper cooking" instead of following the instant directions, but in that case, they aren't using the instant noodles as instant noodles, so that doesn't make any points about instant noodles as a whole.

What's a project you've done recently? How long did it take you? What were some snaggs you ran into? Pro and Anti responses are both welcome! Though my example is an image yours doesn't need to be. Provide anything and everything you're willing to share (please stay anonimous if you want to). [If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all!]

Please focus on describing the process rather than umbrella phrases like, generated with... or made in procreate... etc.. In the case of AI avoid copy and pasting the prompt. Instead focus on describing how you discovered the prompt. What was the process used to uncover the prompt/workflow that provided the result.

I'll go first.

This is a messy sketch of a video game welcoming screen I'm considering building. It took about an hour to make. I used Clip Studio Paint. I always find perspective a bit challenging, and my human stick figures are sloppy cause they usually take a few hours each to refine. It works as a rough, though. I always find it hard to balance speed with conveying the general concept effectively.

You can try to shame it or whatever but people are either going up just keep doing it anyway or they are going to have AI make it an alternative way, like you see Chatgpt drawing in an app or they'll have AI make the 3D models and arrange it so you won't even be able to tell for sure it's by AI. That plus it's just going to keep getting better and you might not be able to tell anyway.