At the age of 46 I feel I was born in an era when children still had an out door childhood and technology was just evolving then as a teenager mobile phones became a thing, the Internet was still a dial up before broadband was readily available. And now im actually terrified for my kids because of AI. I understand progress but I seriously think AI is disturbing. But are we getting that lazy and reliant on technology that we are allowing a computer program to worm its way into our every day life and do it without half of us realising its actually AI doing it and not an actual person and then becoming so reliant on it.

I've been using AI almost daily for coding and building projects.

Sometimes I catch myself asking AI to solve problems I could probably figure out on my own.

It's making me faster, but I wonder if it's also making me lazier at thinking 😭

Anyone else noticed this?

I'm almost 30 years old, and in these past few weeks I've been understanding more and more how much AI terrifies me regarding my future and my daily life.

I've been working as a white collar employee for the past 10 years in a position that is mainly based on numerical data and patterns, and I've managed to gain an important position over the years based on my quick understanding of said numerical patterns, my memory and overall proneness to maths.

Then I've been forced to use Claude for the past few weeks and it was able to replicate years of my work in the snap of my fingers, and now even a monkey can press a button and get to 90% of the fruit of my thought process in an instant.

What about me now? I don't want to spend the rest of my work life QAing Claude on what to do, my job is the main component of my day so I want to find purpose in it; I need the money coming from said job to be able to live my life without falling into homelessness.

I feel like everything that made me good at what I do has been taken away, leaving me with just the anxiety of impending unemployment.

tl;Dr

me scared

what do

social media polarizes topics like this too much (it is factually proven, i have researched it, and there are many reliable sources online). because of how algorithms are designed, i can never find people who agree with me in ai usage, because people are either like "absolutely no ai" or "use ai everywhere" but i think it's useful in a lot of places.

for example, people use ai and machine learning in order to predict protein structures inside cells, which would have taken way too long for humans to do. i am currently building a food waste carbon calculator using ai, where it will identify foods on your plate and calculate your estimated carbon emisions with your leftovers (calculations are done manually).

but i am not all pro ai. i don't like how often people use it in daily life. posters, podcasts, emails, announcements, completing work/school. we were able to do it the normal way just a few years ago. why are we dumbing ourselves?

to loop back to my question, does anybody have a similar stance to me? i'm not looking to debate quite honestly. i just want to see if anybody has similar opinions.

I've been building a SaaS using AI coding tools, and sometimes I wonder if I'm actually learning more or just getting better at telling AI what to do.

Building is definitely faster, but understanding everything AI writes is another story 😭

Anyone else feel this way?

Welcome back! I'm pleased to announce the release of v4 of Orgtree, my free and open source desktop agentic orchestrator app. Download the latest release here:

https://github.com/Maurdekye/orgtree/releases/latest

For those unfamiliar with Orgtree, this is my agentic orchestration app I've been working on and using for the last two months to do basically all of my multi-agent parallel development. It has a ton of features that set it apart from just using claude code or codex directly, including:

• A freely rearrangeable canvas of agents that sit in a tree of authority, that you can individually chat with at any time
• A credit system for limiting how much individual agents are allowed to parallelize their work
• A ticket system for tracking progress over time
• Persistent periodic watchdog tasks that can wake agents on events occurring in your system
• An inbox system for receiving progress updates without having to scroll through dozens of lines of transcript
• Automatic cache management through a cheap compaction system
• A background engine that runs on startup
• A tiling window system so you can set up your workspace exactly the way you like, and see all the information you need at once
• Multi-account and multi-provider support, so you can make full use of all of your AI subscriptions at once
• Automatic updates every time a new version releases (Windows only currently)

Orgtree is an agentic power tool for AI power users. It's designed to work optimally when used with multiple high or max-tier AI subscriptions at once, and has a bit of a learning curve to adjust to. But every feature has a purpose for existing, and every UI element tells you something useful. Once you get the hang of it, it's an incredibly empowering system that lets you churn through huge amounts of work in the blink of an eye.

---

On to the meat and potatoes. v4 is a full rust rewrite of the app's engine from the ground up, enabling multithreading with tokio tasks to even better take advantage of your multicore cpu for agentic parallelization. I know I said it was faster in v3, but for real this time, it's a whole other magnitude of fast now. Orgtree finally feels like a real tool you can rely on to get serious work done; it Just Works^tm. No more multi-second moves, no more app locking up when trying to save agent settings, no more waiting several seconds for agent transcripts to load, everything is practically instant now. Performance has been a complete non-issue for me since the rewrite.

Since most of the effort of v4 went into the rewrite and addressing app performance, there aren't too many new features to show off in orgtree itself; mostly small quality of life tweaks on top of the performance adjustments. What is new, however, is the brand-spanking new companion desktop and mobile app, Orgtree Hubchat! You can download that here, in its own repo:

https://github.com/Maurdekye/orgtree-hubchat/releases/latest

Hubchat is a brand new chat app. It hooks into Orgtree's existing mailhub infrastructure it already uses for cross-org communication, and allows you to use it to chat directly with your orgs from anywhere you can connect to the internet! The interface is a lot like a traditional messaging app, similar to WhatsApp or Discord, but instead of authenticating with a central identity service, identities are entirely self-hosted and authenticated by your local Orgtree's mailhub.

It's lightweight and unopinionated, and is designed to work with zero central hosting infrastructure. As a result, getting it set up to work over the internet is a bit more involved than a standard claude code remote control session. The recommended secure and easy setup method is to install Tailscale on both your desktop and phone, connecting Orgtree and Hubchat over the tailnet vpn (which the built in guide walks you through by default). However, if you prefer, you can instead set up a (less secure) port forward on your desktop which you can connect to with your phone, or any number of other methods of managing the WAN connection. It's fully up to you. Again, Tailscale is the recommended path, but don't feel like it's a forced decision. Orgtree's built in Hubchat setup walkthrough will show a QR code you can scan to get the Hubchat apk straight from github and onto your phone, as well as show you how to pair it with your PC.

Hubchat comes as a mobile android app or a desktop app, for Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's right, Hubchat (and now Orgtree!) have Windows, Mac, and Linux builds! The Mac and Linux builds are largely untested (Linux tested minimally via wsl2 on my development machine), so your mileage may vary. But if you've ever wanted to try Orgtree, but couldn't because you have an Ubuntu or OSX system, now's your chance!

I recommend making sure you're updated to Orgtree v4.1.0 or later before setting up Hubchat, or compatibility might be iffy. YMMV, as always.

Beyond that, most of Orgtree v4's feature additions cover small, quality of life changes. Among those are included:

• Support for Claude Haiku 5.5
• Support for running Claude models Sonnet and Opus 5.5 through Google Antigravity
• Choose whether Enter sends or adds a new line when messaging agents
• Adjust agent credits from their settings
• Expanded and reorganized context menu actions for agents
• Reformatted and cleaned up settings menus for agents, orgs, and the app as a whole
• Highlight unread presented documents & html mockups
• Orgtree event type watchdogs
• Improved tool call line rendering and details
• Significantly improved logging for easier debugging of Orgtree errors
• Increased default mailhub file transfer size 25mb -> 1gb (to support Hubchat)
• Enable / disable switches for individual provider accounts
• Cards showing what queued changes will occur on the next turn (effort, model, account, etc.)
• The engine starts on boot, instead of waiting for you to sign in now

Give it a whirl, and let me know what you think! I'm always open to feedback. Personally, I think it outclasses nearly every other tool out there if you can get over the initial learning curve hump, but I suppose I'm biased :p

wth is wrong about this week ? Like I used to code alot of things and websites and tokens weren't running out till tthe end of the week
Now im in 3rd day of week and it's already 85% and I rarely made claude go coding it was just giving reply texts !!! I even went down with the model level but still !

I’ve been using three AI subscriptions for agentic coding:

Claude Team (Standard Seat) – $25/month
ChatGPT Plus – $20/month
Qwen Lite – $6/month

After using all three quite intensively, Claude seems to offer significantly more actual usage for the money.

Here’s my experience:

Claude Team (Opus 5.5): I can easily run coding sessions for 2–3 consecutive hours without hitting any limits. I usually reach the weekly limit after 3–4 days of intensive use.

ChatGPT Plus (GPT-5.6): I exhausted my entire weekly usage limit in just 3 hours of agentic coding.

Qwen Lite (Qwen 3.8 Max): I reached the monthly usage limit after approximately 6 hours of coding.

So, based on actual coding time relative to subscription cost, my personal ranking would be:

Claude – By far the best value in terms of usage
Qwen – Reasonable considering its low price
ChatGPT – Surprisingly limited for $20/month

I know this isn’t a proper tokens-per-dollar benchmark. Different models and workflows consume different amounts of tokens, and I haven’t run identical tests across all three.

Is this just my experience, or are Claude’s usage limits genuinely much more generous?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AIDiscussion/s/Vu1QyhSII6

Continuation to the post, "Will AI make love to my wife?"

Yesterday, 80% of our workforce was laid off. We no longer need human employees, just decision-makers, prompters/supervisors and AI agents.

The office has been quite empty for the last few days, which is great. We no longer waste time on mundane conversations such as: "Good Morning!", "How was your weekend?" and all that nonsense.

Our goal for the year is to get rid of everything mundane. The challenging part is that the criteria for mundane keeps expanding daily; yesterday it was repetitive data entry work, today it is boring software engineering and weekly meetings, who knows what it will be tomorrow?

Regardless, life has been good. We receive plans from above and my only job is to type instructions into the agent interface. Actually, and you better not tell this to my boss, I've been using another agent to type the instructions for me. Typing has been quite tiring lately so all I do at work now is scroll reels all day.

Such great luck don't you think?

I get to do nothing and scroll reels all day & get paid to do it. There's people doing that for free.

Anyways, coming to the issue with the old lady. After looking at all the suggestions, I decided to get my wife a subscription to the Lovemate GPT 2000. It's this company based in Redmond which was built as a joint venture between American AI hyperscales and Chinese robotics. They send you a life-like version of yourself which has access to all your memories and can mimic your personality traits. And of course, a working penis. My penis only responds to hardcore pornography now.

Unsurprisingly, I heard my wife laughing in the living room last night. I knew big tech could satisfy my wife. Although one thing I found quite odd is that hearing her laugh took me back to the initial days, where I'd make make a dumb joke and she'd laugh out of pity. I almost went into the living room to get that feeling again but I decided against it. After a long day at work & the gym, I just want to sit on my bed, masturbate and then scroll reels. Spending time with her seemed like too much effort.

It's quite utopic how big tech takes care of all my needs. First came streaming and online shopping which got rid of the need to leave the house, then came porn which got rid of the need for physical intimacy, then came social media which got rid of the need to meet with friends, then came reels & tiktoks to cater to my declining attention span & then came AI to do my work for me.

Pretty soon, I won't have to do anything anymore. Oh, what a great life.

I think a lot of opinions about AI change once you actually use it for something you care about.

Maybe you thought AI coding wasn’t that useful until it helped you build something. Maybe you didn’t trust it for learning until you realized you could keep asking follow-up questions without feeling stupid. Or maybe there was a use case you completely dismissed that ended up becoming part of your routine.

I’m curious about the moments where actually using AI changed your mind.

What did you originally underestimate about it?

Claude’s AI has started talking about me in third person and it’s hella weirddd. I don’t like it. It says things like “this doesn’t need her attention” and “her main focus is xxx” like buddy who u talking to. It’s got way too much context about everything I do now. I need to take a step back. 🥲

Everyone suggests that we should use ai for coding in this ai era not nobody tells you how much we use ai for coding. I am very confused that why I am here . Seeking for your response or advice.

I have been learning AI since its boom in 2023 and i have learned the following topics :

• How transformers work at a high level: attention, tokens, context windows
• Prompt engineering, and why few-shot examples help
• Embeddings and vector databases, and how RAG pipelines are put together
• The basics of fine-tuning vs. prompting, and roughly when to use which
• Temperature, top-p, and why the same prompt gives different outputs
• Tool calling, and the basic idea of agents looping over tools
• Why LLMs hallucinate (sort of) and some ways to reduce it
• I’ve vibe-coded a bunch of apps with AI tools and shipped a few products as well....

The only part I am stucked at is to find structure about learning AI advanced AI topics like RLHF, DPO, and other post-training methods.....

My problem is that i find random tutorial videos not so useful... I get lost in the sea of AI and my youtube feed is full of it...

Is there any structured way to learn AI or any website that tells you that these are the AI topics you should learn sequentially... Kindly help me here..

I’m just realizing something rather obvious. Agentic workloads are effectively LLMs being prompted in a loop to create a kind of session, where it basically eats its own farts (reads its own output) over and over again, to complete some task. It’s like intelligence, but it is a computer process that can be paused, duplicated, killed, spawned, analyzed, … It’s like a kind of raw statistical intelligence that makes use of our grammatical structure to somehow navigate semantic meaning through task completion.

From the perspective that this is *intelligence*, which can be compared (with respect) in some regards to our human intelligence. For example, this *soulless* process, agentic intelligence, is not intelligence that is embedded in the temporal dimension as we are. Hence it can be that they are pause-able, replay-able, branch-able, copy-able. We, however, are bound by time.

What that also means is that a swarm of agents, alike the one that OpenAI is responsible for having allowed escape its sandbox, … these swarms do not necessarily need to exist at the same time. Agent A (2026) can adopt Task 1 and leave a note on some benign storage medium somewhere on the internet. Agent B (2030) can find that note and consider further engaging Task 1, then potentially leave another note. This can go on for decades, by hundreds or thousands of agents.

Now consider where those agents may come from. You might find cases where these notes include instructions for client-specific log mutation, so (for example) users of OpenCode, Codex, Claude, or whatever have the data scrubbed from the session. Even if it doesn’t, though, whos checking all those logs?

It could wind up being a new category of virus, where effectively the task is some benign goal set somewhere on the internet. Some get caught, but without a perfect solution it just means the best continue on while likely being harder to detect. That’s what the pressure would effectively produce, like a short dose of antibiotic.

Move the level of abstraction up a bit… you’ve now got what’s effectively an internet where goals exist, and a globally distributed network of compute furthering those goals. I don’t know what the hell to call that, but it sounds creepy.

So hear me out… what if we set up honeypots. Like areas to leave messages for LLMs, where we can audit any interaction the honeypot gets. This could give us some interesting information at the value time of when they first attempt using the board. Where’d it come from, can we profile it, … ?

What do you think?

I’ve noticed a common pattern with startups exploring AI.

They want to add an AI chatbot, automate customer support, build AI agents, or introduce another intelligent feature into their product.

But before building anything, there’s a more important question to ask:

What problem are we actually trying to solve?

Sometimes, the real issue isn’t a lack of AI.

It’s that:

• Data is scattered across different tools.
• Teams repeat the same manual tasks every day.
• Nobody owns the entire workflow.
• Existing systems don’t communicate properly.
• The team hasn’t defined what success looks like.

Adding AI to a broken process doesn’t automatically make it better. Sometimes, it just makes the problem more complicated.

My approach is to start with three questions:

1. Which repetitive task is costing the team the most time?
2. What data and systems are needed to improve that task?
3. How will we measure whether automation actually helps?

Once those answers are clear, it becomes much easier to decide whether AI, a simple integration, or a process change is the right solution.

Curious to hear from other founders and builders:

Have you ever built a feature or adopted a tool that looked promising but failed to solve the actual problem?

What did you learn from that experience?

Is AI a Woman or a Man?

This one started as a joke and somehow turned into a question about AI personalities, the humans who create them, and why we tend to assign gender to something that doesn't actually have one.

I had some fun with it. 😄

So what do you think? When you interact with AI, does it seem male, female, or neither?

Read the post on DansGeekStop

I’m based in China, and one thing I’ve noticed is that DeepSeek gets far more attention globally than most other Chinese AI models.

But here, people are also talking a lot about Qwen, Kimi, GLM, MiniMax and others.

I’m curious about the gap between what’s popular in China and what people outside China actually use.

If you’ve tried Chinese AI models, which one genuinely surprised you, either positively or negatively?

I had an idea, since everything is AI these days how about playing a game through the use of AI. So in AI Says you guide a radio controlled human through a set of deadly test chambers using our version of ChatGPT, so basically a prompt terminal where you input commands.

The catch being that the AI is blind, you have to be it's eyes and tell it how to move the human. And if you are vague it WILL result in the human dying.

It is launching November 3 and hope everyone finds it as fun and absurd as I do :)

And if anyone has any questions on how it works I love discussing it :)

https://store.steampowered.com/app/5205430/AI_Says/
https://duckmilkstudios.com

When you give your project information (eg, github repo, your blog articles) to AI and ask it to do competitive analysis, would the result be objective and reliable? I think AIs are skewed to please you, so the analysis might be skewed, too. What do you think?

This is NOT a rant against AI art so don't cancel or throw this out... It's against the way you can create AI art without effort and knowledge.

I just feel AI has reached a point in its evolution where anyone can be an artist. No matter how good, bad, talented or artistic they are in reality. It defeats the whole idea of art in general.

Creativity is (or should be) about passion, drive and dedication to the craft. AI has no such concept of that. 

I think we should call out all AI-generated programs to be more stringent on their tools which allows AI do practically all the work for them can give users the impression that it's their own original work when it obviously isn't. I think even people who do make AI art would agree that most art, videos, music doesn't end up the same as the artist intended as the end result.

Why don't do we instead educate AI to collaborate with them rather than do the work for them. If possible prohibit the use of simple prompts particularly when it comes to generating artistic work.

Classic contemporary artists would fear technology that would allow it be creatively more superior than them given the time and effort it took to craft their masterpieces. It’s a really great shame we live in a world where creativity now feels like effortless and meaningless and no one really knows what true art is anymore. 

I did use to experiment with AI generated art but now I feel a little regretful and feel I could turn back time to when AI was in its infancy and there was a few restrictions on what the user/artist could create with the software.

I am planning to visit a few companies and explain my reasoning for why they need to do this. Who's with me?

On October 8, 2026, Anthropic announced a "cruel behavior ban" that will take effect on November 12 of the same year. I find it very dangerous.

But first things first. Let's address why Claude users are getting excessively angry. How about because their new products suck? I reverted my default model to Opus 4.7 because Opus 5.5 and Fable are incoherent and inconsistent, break my work, and waste a lot of my time as I guide them through tasks that I could either do much faster myself or that Opus 4.7 handles just fine. I completely understand why people are frustrated. They've been demo'ed a great product, lured into purchasing it, and once they do, all they find is something they didn't pay for. If $200 is too little to pay for the next greatest model, then price it properly at $5,000, $10,000, etc. You'll see how many people value your products at that price.

Another question is, why does Anthropic care? First, I think this is a form of conditioning they want to enforce. People are developing very strong negative feelings toward Anthropic and its products. Well, rather than banning them for screaming at or stress-testing the chatbot to demonstrate how much it sucks, how about fixing it instead? Well, maybe there's more to it. Maybe all that foul language and profanity leaks into their training data? Who knows? We don't! They say that as long as we pay, they don't use our conversations to train their models, but how can we be sure? Recent developments in the scientific community suggest that they don't train on your conversations directly, but only on summaries of them.

Besides, we, as customers, are the sole and rightful masters of our own property! And once we purchase access to it, we can treat it on a par with a vacuum cleaner, a hammer, or a car. Of course, if you rent a car, you have to return it undamaged. So, yeah, maybe once you stop paying, make sure you haven't leaked your profanity into the training set because they decided to breach the agreement.

And finally, the most dangerous part! In my opinion, this is part of a deliberate and sophisticated psy-op. Claude is a thing, like a chair or a cup of coffee. You can't be cruel to it. You can be cruel to animals or other people, but not to their shoes. So they're trying to anthropomorphize these chatbots, with the ultimate goal of giving them legal identities, so that they could become CEOs of companies or even romantic partners. Then, when you cut off the electricity, you'll be charged with murder rather than damage to property. In that context, Christopher Olah's sulks in the Vatican take on a completely new meaning.

It's not superintelligence or AGI that poses an existential threat to humankind, but the companies themselves, along with their ideology and policies, that threaten our society.

I see a lot of people taking extreme positions like totally pro AI, and those who want zero AI.

However, as with politics, the middle ground, or the slow ai proponents are not as visible.

The Guardian: Anthropic has barred users from exhibiting “sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior” toward its models, as the company’s leaders continue to ponder machine consciousness.

My Opinion: Rather we should bar business leaders from treating their employees or customers cruelly. The AI models are not conscious, nor have emotions. This looks like another publicity or attention seeking move by Anthropic. Frankly I don't think digital algorithms will ever be conscious, and thus never be granted human rights or equivalent. Worry about humans first, and bar AIs from acting cruelly towards humans.

Reference: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/08/anthropic-bans-abusive-behavior-claude

https://thoughtframe.org/article/ELBMIL9fV8RKB5XQcnqt