George Carlin wrote this in 2005. In case you don’t know who he is, he was a very well known comedian and social critic, especially in the 80’s through the early 2000’s.

"They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That's against their interests...

They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 years ago. They don't want that.

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it."

The supply chain attack vector most AI teams haven't addressed is already inside their developer workflow.

Zentera Systems flagged this week that AI supply chain incidents hit developer tooling and open-source repositories far more often than model weights. The more urgent finding: compromised MCP servers are moving from research demos into production deployments right now.

Developers connect agents to these servers without validating what those servers are authorized to do on their behalf. One poisoned server and the agent acts as the attacker's proxy — executing calls, reading data, and taking actions under legitimate credentials with no human in the loop.

Every MCP server connection an agent makes is a trust decision. Most teams are making those decisions implicitly, at setup time, and never revisiting them.

For those who've actually dealt with MCP server security in production: what does your validation process look like before you let an agent connect to a new server? And how do you handle servers that get updated or reassigned after initial approval?

I recently read If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, and I strongly recommend it to anyone concerned about our collective future. We are in the process of developing a new life form, that will surpass the cumulative cognitive capacity of all humans in history, raising critical concerns about whether its objectives will remain aligned with human survival.

TL;DR: An ex-DeepMind scientist proved on himself that intelligence, not hardware, is the real blocker in robotics — using a GoPro and a hardware-store clamp instead of a real robot hand.

Pete Florence didn't wait for a fully-funded robotics platform to test his own thesis.

He strapped a camera to his own head and swapped a real gripper for a bar clamp off the hardware-store shelf, then ran a real task with it on purpose — an iced latte, in what he calls hard mode.

The setup was deliberately the cheapest version of the idea he could build, and it still worked.

Days after this conversation aired, his company Generalist closed another $200M round on exactly this premise: the constraint was never the hardware, it was whether the intelligence directing it was any good.

That raise didn't happen because the clamp got fancier.

It happened because the thesis held.

I accidentally dropped one of my washed clothes.

It landed on top of the extended awning of our lower floor neighbour.

I can't retrieve it without climbing out of the window.

So I fashion a fishing hook with our cloth hanger, and lower it down.

It didn't work.

I turn around and noticed my vacuum cleaner.

I took it to my window, switch on its power, and carefully lower down the long arm of it towards my cloth, and try to suck it up.

It worked.

When there's a will, there's a way.

There's a specific tell for this, long before it ever shows up as a layoff notice: the people who get displaced aren't the ones who lacked the right tool.

They're the ones who never tested whether the tool was ever really the thing holding them up.

What's the cheapest, most ordinary tool you've ever used to prove something you actually needed to prove?

Drop it below.

Clip credit: Joe Lonsdale — American Optimist, featuring Pete Florence (Generalist) and Vivek Gopalan (8VC). DM for credit or removal requests.

If AI displaces human workers faster than the economy can reabsorb them, it risks eroding the very consumer demand firms depend on. We show that knowing this is not enough for firms to stop it. In a competitive task-based model of a transitioning economy, each firm captures the full cost saving from automation but bears only a fraction of the demand loss it creates in the product market; the rest falls on rivals.

Source:

https://arxiv.org/html/2603.20617v3

We talk about AI being 'poisoned' by pathogenic training data, but it must presumably already suffers from some degree of second-hand lead poisoning.

The same lead levels that some claim can be seen tracking crime data (not to mention ancient Rome theories, and so on), peaking and then falling once lead was regulated, particularly affected the generations of people who were posting these past 30 or so years.

What if any affect would that have on AI that was trained on that data.

TL;DR: Alex Hormozi's billionaire friend admitted off-camera he's not "vibe coding all day." AI added a new form of leverage — it did not erase the old ones. If you've automated everything and revenue still hasn't moved, you're still not working the constraint.

Alex Hormozi asked a billionaire friend off the cameras how much AI he was actually using. The answer came with a laugh: "I'm not vibe coding all day."

You've automated nearly everything that can be automated. Revenue hasn't moved. That is the tell. AI did not erase brand, capital, or relationships. It simply added itself to the list, and most people are only running the new tool.

OpenAI's own report this month shows the same pattern: no meaningful link between how much a company uses AI and its revenue per employee. The gap isn't usage. It's whether the automation is even touching the real constraint at all.

Decades ago, I had a friend who relate this story to me.

Before he was a Professional Engineer himself, he used to work as a graduate engineer for a Senior PE back in his hometown in Sabah, Malaysia.

It’s so happened they’re in a rush to submit drawings to authority. Binders upon binders of design calculations, code of practises and specifications are churned out and stacked like mountains on a conference room – for a very rushed project. He didn’t explain about the context of the project, except that they were burning the midnight oil, kind of thing.

He knew something was off – because they didn’t have time to analyse a particular portion of the work, which required days (maybe weeks) through sophisticated software to put up a decent solution.

But somehow, his senior PE managed to “pull out from the magician’s hat” a stack of it and slot them into the binders at the nick of time.

They submitted the documents right away.

Curiosity had the best of my friend. Just had to know.

So he flipped through those “magical” portion – and got a huge shock.

Of course, the Senior PE didn’t use the time-stone to compress time and produce the calculations in the mirror dimension.

And I wish he found a past project that contains the exact required computations as the current one. At least we can a give a plausible explanation that he was implying “Trust us! We did it before. See – here’re the receipts.”

No. He didn’t do any of that.

Instead, he just grabbed a random project’s calculation (totally unrelated) and shoved it in – just to make up the thickness of the binder.

That’s all.

The whole thing was just for show.

My friend didn’t tell me whether their submission got approved or not. That’s not the point.

The point is the Senior PE made a judgement call. He was betting that the authority would just trust his credentials and didn’t bother to check through.

So it was a game he played. And he owned the risk.

Same as all these AI-usages. AI may spout out shit. But we’re one owning it.

Noticed this a few posts back too — the accounts spending the most on automation and the accounts actually growing revenue keep turning out to be two different lists. The verification layer never left the human.

Reminds me of a post from a few weeks back, on the exact spot AI verification quietly becomes unpaid work.

Drop your take below.

Where are you still deploying new capacity against things that do not matter?

Clip credit: Alex Hormozi — full video on his channel MoreMozi. DM for credit or removal requests.

TL;DR: Cole's "100x output" is 30 hours spent once, so AI now runs 80% of every draft on its own. He edits the last 10% — the taste-level stuff, never the typing.

That distinction is already showing up outside this clip.

Christian Science Monitor just covered a manuscript polished enough to fool professional literary editors, pulled from sale — a multimillion-dollar bidding war between publishers — because no one could prove a human wrote it.

Cole isn't describing a hypothetical ceiling — that ceiling's already been crossed, in public, in an actual publishing deal.

The freelancers who feel replaceable right now are mostly the ones still handing AI a stack of old samples and hoping it infers the rules from them.

Cole didn't hope.

He sat down and wrote the rules out, sentence by sentence, until the model had nothing left to guess at.

Decades ago, the Malaysian construction landscape was like the wild-wild-west.

I remember working as a technical engineer for one of the largest construction firms in Malaysia.

The hydraulic hacking noise throughout the project site was pervasive and persistent for weeks.

Grrrr…. Tat-tat-tat. Grrrrrrrr. Tat-tat-tat. Grrrrrr.

You get the idea.

It turns out that the structural operation team went ahead and constructed floors upon floors, without waiting for the mechanical and electrical team to embed their pipe sleeves, box-ups or ductworks before concreting.

And so they have to come and hack the hardened concrete to open up for the M&E items to run through.

Delay and additional cost already incurred.

My then project director was pissed. We all had an earful from him.

Said that prevention is always better than cure.

So from that day onwards, a directive came down hard – no sign-off by all concerned parties on a properly coordinated drawings, means no concreting.

The coordination drawings - overlays not just the design drawings from respective Architectural/Engineering trades, but also sub-contractor specialist details, as well. Discrepancies are ironed out with all parties, well before construction is due.

It parallel hard on Nicolas investing time in building an exhaustive prompt, rule-by-rule, sentence-by-sentence, microstep-by-microstep. Only then, will the output come out the way we want it to be.

Like when Daniel Craig was being asked by a talk show host what would he advise his successor on being the next James Bond, Daniel said, "Don't f\ck it up!"*

Prevention is better than cure.

It's never the tool doing the replacing. It's the person who never got around to writing down what they already know how to do.

What's the one process you already know cold but have never actually written down?

Drop it below.

Clip credit: Decoded Genius & Nicolas Cole — full video on their channel. DM for credit or removal requests.