I agree with you. AI will produce random junk. That is why you need the guard rails that will check and verify the results and throw away the junk. You create a loop where most of the stuff is thrown away and only the good parts are kept.

Let me give you a simple example. Lets say that you want to solve "2+2" math problem, this is how you do it:
1. Give question to the AI. Ask it also to give only the answer as output and nothing else.
2. Check if the result is 4, if it is not, throw the result away, start a new session and go back to step 1.
3. If you got the correct answer, exit the loop.

If that was too simple, here is a paper about more complex problem:
https://arxiv.org/html/2511.09...

Like I said, this limits the use cases, but there are still use cases, especially in math where you can use this.

Just because there are limitations, doesn't mean that it is worthless. You can even use it to solve unsolved math problems:
https://www.technologyreview.c...

> It most definitely cannot "make flawless work without any mistakes, million times in a row"

Perfect means zero errors.

Here is the paper:
"Solving a Million-Step LLM Task with Zero Errors"
https://arxiv.org/html/2511.09...

I disagree with you. AI can make higher quality work than a human. In fact, AI can make flawless work without any mistakes, million times in a row. But it doesn't usually happen unless the AI is specifically guided to do so.

The key difference is that AI (chat bot) doesn't know when it makes a mistake, nor does it know when it does poor quality work. You can add guard rails for the AI that will detect those mistakes and guide the AI to try again, and this is in fact used in many use cases of the AI, but the downside is that you have to write those guard rails by hand and for each situation and it is usually quite hard to do perfectly unless the problem is really simple.

As long as you understand that limitation and you have a good use case, you can setup AI to make high quality or even perfect work for you.

I actually conducted an experiment on a living human. The result of the experiment was that after reading about 7000 hours in foreign language, the human in question become almost fluent in the language the novel was written in. In school grades, the jump was about 3 grades. Note that the human had basic skills in the foreign language before the experiment.

How does the human use these skills you might ask. Before reading, the human could only write very basic sentences, often with broken grammar. After reading the sentences were long and usually had perfect grammar. This happened even with sentences that were not part of the training material. The human could also write small stories, but actual book writing was not tested.

So you can train a human simply by reading novels. Unfortunately I don't have any data about the skill level in the middle of the training, so I don't know if 7000 hours is actually needed.

As a government, buy infrastructures, factories and farms that are critical for sustaining life. This way all you need is workforce (which you have plenty or you can automate) and perhaps a little of money to keep people alive. Instead of sharing money like in option A, provide basic services and goods. If you are the owner of the factories, automation does not hurt you, it helps you.

So you are against publishing new discoveries in math if those were discovered by LLM and verified by mathematicians?

Ship or spaceship.

Is there any proof that exercise is good for the body? I think there was a study that showed that too much exercise shortens your life.

There seems to be link with programming and languages in brain activity:
https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/12/17...

There are multiple solutions to the problem. Personally I think that best solution is to just change a little how platforms reward content creators. E.g. add a vote button "does this video make the society a better place". If the vote is negative, don't give money for that video. This should fix the problem automatically as everyone starts making videos that get positive number. Other alternatives might be inventing better things for the young people to do. Or perhaps we are just trying to solve the wrong problem, as explained in this TED talk "It's not the phones" video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Life is hard. If you escape from the lab, you are against thousands of viruses, bacteria and fungi that try to eat you. I find it quite unlikely that you would just accidentally create a super cell from scratch that beats millions of years of evolution.

You are not thinking like a billionaire. If you have 250 billion, you would pay 12.5 billion in taxes, which is about half of what you could realistically gain in a year before taxes. Now your options are:
1. Do nothing and lose 12.5 billion
2. Do something to avoid paying 12.5 billion.

Which option would you pick?

Both you can Bezos can be right at the same time.

How many jobs require intelligence?