The problem is that even in its current heavily subsidized form, more than half of surveyed companies say they're not seeing financial benefits from AI:

https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2026/03/17/why-most-ceos-see-no-return-on-ai-investments/

https://fortune.com/article/why-do-thousands-of-ceos-believe-ai-not-having-impact-productivity-employment-study/

https://gizmodo.com/yet-another-study-shows-that-most-companies-arent-making-any-money-off-ai-2000688655

If AI companies were to start charging what they would need to to make their services profitable, then the price of AI to the customer skyrockets to many times what it costs now, and companies will be less inclined to use it because it would start burning into their bottom line.

Again, that is today.  Amazon spent a decade losing money.  Give it time.  I am positive my company would pay large sums for AI.  It will balance out.  AI is here to stay.  

Or it could simply be a dead end; AI primacy is in no way guaranteed, it could simply be that the technology has too many problems and limitations to ever really deliver what AI companies have promised and so far failed to deliver.

The thing I posted earlier shows this isn't the case. It used reasoning to disprove something mathematicians believed for close to a century and produced an original idea that has advanced the field of mathematics which is a huge deal. I really think you're not up to date on just how capable state of the art 2026 models are. There's a significant gap between them and the best stuff from a year ago and a big gap between them and the free stuff. They're absolutely capable of producing original ideas now so the idea they just remix and regurgitate their training idea is outdated. 

Finding patterns and drawing conclusions in numerical data isn't forming an original idea, it's data in, data out. There's no "reasoning" involved, the model isn't really thinking.

Anything is possible but my money is on AI becoming like the internet.  Standard part of life.

It works really well for mathematical modeling.  Like amazing. 

Humans have been rationalizing war crimes, torture, reducing / displacing population for all recorded history. Trump is rationalizing his war on the ME with one mantra he repeats hundred times a day "Iran can not have a nuclear weapon" and with that he rationalizes every terrible thing he's done. Who says AI won't do the same, with even less emotion. Who says AI would not have nuked Iran already when given the instruction "Iran can not have a nuclear weapon".

Rationality is the quality of basing beliefs and decisions on reason, logic, and empirical evidence rather than emotion or intuition.


That can have positive effects, excluding racism from decisions, yet the evidence is all around us, banker wars for resources, it's the rational decision to keep a stranglehold over the world. It's rational decisions that lead to wars, despite the media and politicians using people's emotions to go along with it.

We don't need more acceleration, too much change too fast is far more dangerous and destructive. Btw Europe still has a car problem, congested, pollution, urban sprawl, nearly 20K traffic deaths yearly.

"it is our use of the technology, the societal parameters around it that decide the outcome."

Indeed, who is controlling AI is who determines where society will go. It's the same people that are orchestrating / funding and going along with resource wars / worship unbridled capitalism and don't give a crap about people. 

AI is a tool and I don't trust those wielding it at all. 

As example, would the world have been better off with nuclear technology? Sure it accelerated growth a bit with nuclear power plants, but those in power used it to take the world hostage and still do. The 2 nukes on Japan were not necessary at all yet rationalized away as a future deterrent. That same rationalization has now persuaded 'the deranged occupant of the white house' to seal the fate of millions of people. (Hunger/starvation will increase killing millions as the outcome of this folly)

Yes we need to fix our world, tech billionaires with their data centers are not going to do it. But they can accelerate the fall of US empire and civilization in general. International law has already been dismantled out of self-dense rational.

IPOS Are legit a scam, this is how corpos make their Millions. Hype up a private corperation, get a Multi Mega-Millions evaluation, and IPO the shares and OPT out.
The IPO, is how they will socialize the loss onto the gullible public. https://github.com/AmeenAli/XAI_Transformers

As someone who is using Grok to make a game, (Coming out on App play store in 2 weeks) (most uncensored AI) its like QWEN, Stable Diffusion and other Diffusion models. AI bro's probably don't' even read the papers on how Transformers actually work. I use both local AI and Grock, I have ComfyUI installed on my PC so I know what im talking about. I also have Oobabooga and play around with AIchat characters.  All have a free alternative. 

Grok Imagine is powered by Aurora, xAI’s proprietary autoregressive Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model (not a traditional diffusion model).
It works by treating image generation as a sequential token prediction task: the model is trained on massive interleaved text-image datasets, learning to autoregressively generate visual tokens (similar to how LLMs predict next words) conditioned on the text prompt. A Mixture-of-Experts architecture routes different parts of the image to specialized expert sub-networks, enabling strong prompt adherence, coherent composition, excellent typography, consistent faces, and high photorealism. This autoregressive approach (as opposed to iterative denoising in diffusion models like Flux or SD3) gives it natural advantages in following complex instructions and maintaining global consistency, while still producing high-resolution outputs efficiently.

• At the very beginning, the model starts with an empty grid (or a special start token).
• It then generates the first patch (top-left) based only on the text prompt.
• Next patches are generated one by one (usually in raster order — left to right, top to bottom), each one conditioned on the prompt + all previous patches.
• Early patches often look like random colors or vague blobs. The image only becomes coherent after many patches are filled in.

for the laughs you can install Stable Diffusion for free. https://github.com/lllyasviel/stable-diffusion-webui-forge

Comfy UI:  https://github.com/Comfy-Org/ComfyUI

For every PAID AI their is a free alternative. Eventually data centers will be old and irrelevant and everything will be locally run on 3080's or higher.
Have fun Gang. :D I'll be laughing when circular financing collapses and I get Grock Imagine for Free :D

"Rationalizing" already implies it is not rational. You use that word multiple times. The definition you give is correct: "Rationality is the quality of basing beliefs and decisions on reason, logic, and empirical evidence rather than emotion or intuition." People claiming their decision being rational doesn't make it so and excluding factors that are known is indeed not rational. So yes, people lie a lot to define their decisions as rational, but I cannot see war being a rational decision, if you take everything into account. People use their emotions (fear, superiority) or personal gains to decide pro war, and then construct something to claim their decision is rational. It is not. In science starting from the result is not something you do. Rationalization is not the same as being rational. Because you already start with the conclusion and then cherry-pick your evidence to support it. So you are not arguing against rationality at all, just a facade over emotionally based decision.

But it wasn't in any data since no mathematicians had been able to come to that conclusion so not only did it produce something original for the field of mathematics, it's so advanced that only full on PHD level experts in math would be able to produce something that high quality. I understand scepticism here since it sounds wild but there is actually reasoning involved.

They don't just predict what the next thing is supposed to be, nowadays they have internal thought processes that they use while examining data to come to their own conclusions. Here's a link that shows the thought process of the model as it tackled the problem so you can see for yourself. Basically if it was just predicting what comes next and wasn't doing any thinking it wouldn't have been able to successfully do what it did since it's something original no one had ever done before in math.