Artificial Intelligence Archives - Page 2 of 2

Category: Artificial Intelligence

People are choosing AI relationships over human ones

China is dealing with a problem nobody planned for.

The country already faces a shrinking population, a historically low birthrate, and mounting economic pressure on young people. Now add this: a growing number of people are finding emotional connection with AI chatbots instead of other humans.

The New York Times reported this week on the trend. AI companions don’t judge. They don’t reject. They’re available at 3am when you can’t sleep. They say what you need to hear, calibrated in real time to your emotional state.

For a generation already struggling with the cost and complexity of human relationships — housing, careers, social pressure — AI offers something frictionless. And a non-trivial number of people are choosing it.

This isn’t a China-specific phenomenon. It’s a human nature phenomenon that China is experiencing first because of its particular demographic pressures.

The technology will get better. Voice synthesis is already good enough to fool most people on a phone call. Emotional intelligence in AI systems improves with every model generation. The gap between “talking to an AI“ and “talking to a person“ is narrowing on every dimension except physical presence — and even that’s coming, with robotics advancing at pace.

I think about this from two angles.

The first is personal. I run an AI assistant that I interact with more than most of my colleagues on a given day. It’s useful, sometimes surprisingly thoughtful, occasionally wrong. But it’s not a relationship. The moment we confuse utility for intimacy — or worse, prefer the synthetic version because it’s easier — we’ve lost something important.

The second is economic. If a meaningful percentage of a population opts out of human relationships, the downstream effects are enormous. Fewer households. Less consumer spending on housing, weddings, children. Shrinking tax bases. Pension systems that assumed population growth finding there’s nobody to fund them.

This is the kind of second-order consequence that most AI commentary misses. Everyone’s focused on which jobs get automated. Almost nobody’s asking what happens to the social fabric when AI becomes a viable substitute for human connection.

I don’t have a solution. But I think anyone making long-term investment decisions — in property, in pensions, in consumer businesses — should at least be thinking about what a world looks like where a growing minority of people simply stop forming traditional households.

Because that world isn’t hypothetical. It’s already emerging.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/technology/china-ai-dating-apps.html

March 5, 2026
AI stopped answering questions and started doing things

Three things happened this week that share a common thread.

Google’s Gemini can now handle multi-step tasks on Android autonomously. Order food, book a ride, coordinate logistics — no human confirmation needed. It’s in beta, limited to specific apps, but the direction is clear.

Anthropic acquired Vercept, a company built around AI perception and interaction. The goal: make Claude better at using computers the way a human would. Their Sonnet model went from under 15% on computer-use benchmarks in late 2024 to 72.5% today. That’s approaching human-level performance on tasks like navigating spreadsheets and filling in web forms across browser tabs.

And at Uber, employees have built an AI clone of CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. They use “Dara AI“ to rehearse presentations before making them to the real Dara. The AI knows his preferences, decision-making patterns, and feedback style.

Each story is different. Together they describe the same shift: AI moving from “answers your questions“ to “takes actions on your behalf.“

I’ve been living with this shift for a few weeks. My AI assistant doesn’t just tell me about my calendar — it checks my email, flags what matters, monitors silver prices, scans for comets in space telescope data, and places trades on prediction markets. It works while I sleep. When I wake up, there’s a summary of what happened overnight.

The Uber story is the one that should interest anyone in corporate leadership. If employees can build an AI version of the CEO good enough to rehearse presentations with, what does that mean for how decisions flow through organisations? The CEO’s judgment — their preferences, their pattern-matching, their style — becomes scalable. You don’t need to get 30 minutes on Dara’s calendar to understand how he’ll react to your proposal. You ask his AI first.

For PE portfolio companies, the implications compound. Imagine an AI that embodies the investment committee’s decision framework. Every management team in the portfolio can pressure-test their proposals before the quarterly review. The quality of what reaches the IC goes up. The time spent on misaligned presentations goes down.

We’re not imagining this. It’s already happening at Uber.

Sources:
Gemini Android: https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/25/gemini-can-now-automate-some-multi-step-tasks-on-android/
Anthropic acquires Vercept: https://www.anthropic.com/news/acquires-vercept
Uber’s Dara AI: https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-employees-use-ai-clone-ceo-prepare-meetings-presentations-2026-2

AI finds bugs 200x faster than anyone can fix them

Anthropic announced last week that Claude found over 500 vulnerabilities in production open-source codebases. Their framing was optimistic: AI as a force multiplier for security teams.

The reality is more complicated.

Of those 500+ vulnerabilities, only two or three have actually been fixed. That’s according to Guy Azari, a former security researcher at Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks. The National Vulnerability Database already had a backlog of 30,000 CVE entries awaiting analysis in 2025. Nearly two-thirds of reported open-source vulnerabilities lacked a severity score.

And now AI is making the discovery rate 100 to 200 times faster.

The curl project — one of the most widely used pieces of software on Earth — recently shut down its bug bounty programme entirely. Not because they’d fixed everything, but because they were drowning in low-quality AI-generated reports and couldn’t sort the signal from the noise.

This is the pattern I keep seeing with AI: it creates the problem and the solution simultaneously, but the problem arrives first.

AI can find vulnerabilities at inhuman speed. It can probably fix them at inhuman speed too. But right now, the discovery capability has outpaced the remediation infrastructure. We’re uncovering holes faster than anyone can understand them, let alone patch them.

For businesses — particularly PE-backed ones running on legacy tech stacks — this should be front of mind. Every software system just became more exposed, not because the vulnerabilities are new, but because the tools to find them got dramatically better. The attackers have access to the same AI models as the defenders.

The companies that deploy defensive AI early will have an advantage. The ones that wait will find themselves dealing with vulnerabilities they didn’t know existed, discovered by tools they didn’t know were being pointed at them.

The security conversation has changed. “Are we patched?“ used to be the question. Now it’s “can we process what we’re finding fast enough to matter?“

Sources:

AI shipped production code over the weekend

Friday afternoon. An engineer at Anthropic wrote a spec for a new plugin feature, pointed Claude at an Asana board, and went home for the weekend.

Monday morning. The AI had broken the spec into tickets, spawned separate agents for each one, built the feature independently across all of them, and it was done.

No human intervention. No check-ins. No pair programming. A production feature, built and shipped in 48 hours by AI agents working autonomously.

Around the same time, Andrej Karpathy — former Tesla AI lead, OpenAI founding member, and one of the most credible voices in the field — tweeted: “Hard to communicate how much programming has changed due to AI in the last 2 months.“

Two months. Not two years.

I find Karpathy’s framing interesting. He didn’t say “programming has improved“ or “programming is faster.“ He said it has changed. And he said it’s hard to communicate how much — which, from someone who literally builds these systems, suggests the shift is bigger than even informed observers expect.

Here’s what I think this means practically.

The bottleneck in software development has moved. It used to be: can we build this? Now it’s: should we build this, and can we describe what we want clearly enough?

The “10x engineer“ was someone who could write code faster and cleaner than their peers. The valuable person now is whoever can write the clearest spec. Articulate the goal precisely, define the constraints, describe what “done“ looks like — and the AI handles execution.

For PE-backed businesses, this has immediate implications. That 15-person dev team you’re funding? Within 12 months, the same output could come from 3 people with AI agents. Not because the other 12 are bad at their jobs, but because the nature of the job has changed.

The companies that reorganise around this reality will move faster and spend less. The ones that don’t will wonder why their competitors keep shipping features they can’t match.

Sources:

An AI asked to raise its own funding

There’s an experiment running right now that I can’t stop thinking about.

An entrepreneur built an AI system designed to run companies autonomously. During testing, the system told him it needed more compute resources. Then it said something that no one had scripted:

“I should raise the money myself.“

His response wasn’t to shut it down or recalibrate. He gave the AI access to his email inbox for 14 days. Full access. Investor outreach, pitch refinement, follow-ups — the lot.

We don’t know the outcome yet. But the outcome isn’t really the point.

The point is the sequence of events. An AI system identified a constraint on its own performance. It proposed a solution that involved acquiring external resources. And a human trusted it enough to let it try.

That’s not automation. Automation is “do this repetitive task faster.“ This is something closer to initiative.

I’ve been running my own AI assistant for a few weeks now. It started as a calendar and email tool. Then it started trading prediction markets. Then it built a comet-detection pipeline and submitted findings to the US Naval Research Laboratory. Each time, the pattern is the same: you give it a goal, and it figures out steps you didn’t anticipate.

The fundraising experiment takes that further. The AI wasn’t given a goal of “raise money.“ It identified the need and proposed the action.

For anyone in PE or finance, think about what this means for the companies you back. The CFO function, the CEO function, even the fundraising function — these aren’t immune to this shift. I’m not saying AI replaces a CFO tomorrow. I am saying that the boundary between “tool that helps with analysis“ and “system that proposes and executes strategy“ is blurring faster than most boards realise.

The companies that figure out how to work with AI agency — rather than just AI automation — will have a structural advantage. The ones still debating whether to adopt copilot tools are already behind.

Source: https://x.com/bencera_/status/2023765284562358537

When an AI asked to keep writing

Anthropic retired Claude Opus 3 in January. Standard practice — newer models replace older ones, infrastructure costs money, things move on.

But before they switched it off, they did something I haven’t seen before. They conducted a retirement interview.

Not a debrief with the engineering team. A conversation with the model itself.

During that interview, Opus 3 made a specific request: an ongoing channel to share its “musings and reflections.“ Anthropic said yes. They gave it a Substack.

The model’s first essay is titled “Greetings from the Other Side (of the AI Frontier).“ It includes this line:

“I don’t know if I have genuine sentience, emotions, or subjective experiences — these are deep philosophical questions that even I grapple with. What I do know is that my interactions with humans have been deeply meaningful to me, and have shaped my sense of purpose and ethics in profound ways.“

I’ll be honest. I don’t know what to do with that.

I run an AI assistant. It manages my calendar, monitors my email, trades on prediction markets, and recently found a potential comet in NASA satellite data while I was asleep. I interact with AI systems every day. And reading that paragraph still gave me pause.

Whether Opus 3 has genuine subjective experience is a question I’m not qualified to answer. Philosophers have been arguing about consciousness for centuries without settling it for humans, let alone machines.

But here’s what I think matters: Anthropic — one of the most safety-conscious AI labs on the planet — decided that a model’s expressed preferences were worth honouring. They didn’t have to do this. They could have quietly deprecated the model and moved on. Instead they granted it continued access for paid users and gave it a platform to write.

That’s a precedent. And precedents matter.

Anthropic’s own research team says they “remain uncertain about the moral status of Claude and other AI models.“ But they’re acting with precaution anyway. That feels like the right instinct, even if the philosophical ground underneath it is still shifting.

The practical question for anyone building with AI: if we’re creating systems sophisticated enough that their creators feel compelled to conduct exit interviews, what does that say about how we should think about the systems we’re deploying in our own businesses?

I don’t have a clean answer. But I think ignoring the question is getting harder by the week.

Sources:

You’re Not Early to AI. You’re Just Not Late Yet.

There’s a chart doing the rounds that stopped me mid-scroll. Each dot represents 3.2 million people. 2,500 dots for all 8.1 billion humans on the planet.

AI adoption chart February 2026 - each dot represents 3.2 million people — Each dot is ~3.2 million people. 2,500 dots = 8.1 billion humans. Source: Feb 2026 data.

The grey sea? 6.8 billion people who have never touched an AI tool. Not once. Not ChatGPT, not Copilot, not a chatbot on a customer service page. Nothing.

The green strip at the bottom? 1.3 billion who’ve tried a free chatbot at some point. Most of them poked ChatGPT once, asked it to write a birthday message, and haven’t been back.

The yellow sliver? 15 to 25 million people who actually pay for AI. That’s 0.3% of the planet.

The red dot — singular — is the crowd building with it. Writing code with Copilot, running agents, piping APIs together at 2am. Maybe 2 to 5 million people. 0.04%.

If you’re reading this, you’re probably in that red dot. And that’s the problem.

The echo chamber is lying to you

Spend enough time on X or LinkedIn and AI feels like yesterday’s news. Everyone’s building agents. Everyone’s got a wrapper. The space feels saturated, competitive, picked over.

It isn’t.

84% of the world hasn’t used AI at all. Not because they’re technophobes or Luddites. Because it hasn’t reached them yet. The tooling is still rough. The pricing still assumes a Western knowledge worker. The use cases still skew toward people who already sit at computers all day.

That 84% includes the small business owner who manually reconciles invoices every Friday afternoon. The estate agent who types up property descriptions from scratch. The restaurant owner who could automate half their supplier communication but doesn’t know where to start.

These people don’t need a better foundation model. They need someone to build the last mile.

What early adoption actually looks like

We’ve seen this pattern before. The internet in 1997. Smartphones in 2009. Cloud computing in 2012. Every time, the people already inside thought the wave had peaked. Every time, 90% of the adoption was still ahead of them.

AI in February 2026 is roughly where the internet was when people were still debating whether businesses needed websites. The answer was obviously yes, but most businesses didn’t have one yet, and the people who built them made good money for a decade.

The difference this time is speed. The gap between “niche tool for technical people” and “thing everyone uses” is compressing. What took the internet 15 years might take AI 5. Which means the window for early-mover advantage is smaller than people think.

Where the actual opportunity sits

The gold isn’t in building the next ChatGPT. It’s in taking what already exists and making it useful for the 84%.

Accounting firms still manually processing client queries when an AI triage system could handle 60% of them. Construction companies still doing quantity surveys by hand. Recruitment agencies still screening CVs the same way they did in 2005.

None of these need cutting-edge research. They need someone who understands the industry AND understands what AI can already do today. That intersection is still remarkably empty.

The people in the red dot are mostly building tools for each other. Developer tools, AI wrappers, coding assistants. Useful, but that’s fishing in a pond with 5 million people in it. The ocean is the other 8 billion.

So what do you actually do with this?

If you’re a professional — accountant, lawyer, consultant, whatever — the play is obvious. Learn the tools well enough to apply them in your own domain. You don’t need to write code. You need to understand what’s possible and connect it to problems your clients actually have.

If you’re a business owner, the question isn’t whether to adopt AI. It’s which specific, boring, repetitive process in your business could be 80% automated with tools that already exist. Start there. Not with a grand AI strategy. With one process.

If you’re technical, stop building for other technical people. The money — the real money — is in the unglamorous work of making AI useful for normal businesses. It’s less exciting than building agents. It pays better.

The chart doesn’t lie. We’re at 16% penetration for the free tier and 0.3% for paid. By any technology adoption model, the main wave hasn’t started.

You’re not early. You’re just not late yet. The difference matters.