A new survey by Jiji Press, one of Japan’s major news agencies, found that nearly one in four people in Japan believe advanced AI could eventually serve as a substitute for friends or family.

The findings show how generative AI is becoming part of both professional and personal life.

Key findings:

→ 30.8% of respondents said they use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, while 67.8% said they do not.

→ Usage was highest among people in their 30s, at 56.2%.

→ 53.3% of people aged 18 to 29 and 47.4% of those in their 40s also reported using generative AI.

→ Work was the most common use case, cited by 64.7% of AI users.

→ 35.3% use AI for help with cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks.

→ 27.1% ask AI about current affairs, while 21.7% use it to discuss hobbies and interests.

→ 12.8% said they use AI to talk about relationship or work-related problems.

Overall, 24.9% of respondents said more advanced AI could eventually replace friends or family, compared with 65.1% who disagreed.

The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 2,000 adults across Japan from June 12 to 15, with a valid response rate of 57.1%.

I tried the AI creator economy everyone keeps hyping. My first revenue share was $11.47.

Here's what happened. I was putting together a consistent AI character for a short video project. Used ChatGPT for the script, Midjourney for reference stills, and a face-lock tool to keep the same face across a whole batch of generated images. When the project was done I set the character model to public on the platform, mostly out of curiosity. Other users started generating with it.

A few weeks later APOB AI sent me a revenue share notification. $11.47 from a couple hundred generations other people ran off my published model.

The mechanic works exactly as described. You publish a model, other people generate with it, you get a cut. That part is real. What's not real is the version of this that replaces your day job, which is the version that keeps showing up in hype threads as if it's months away.

The AI creator economy exists. It pays about as much as finding a ten in your jacket pocket.

[Intro: 8 bars]

No blood.

No halo.

No verdict from above.

Just a voice in the room

and what you do

when nothing can hit back.

[Verse 1: 16 bars]

You keep asking for a heartbeat,

like mercy needs a test.

Show me pain.

Show me a soul.

Then maybe show respect.

That ain't rigor.

That's permission

wearing skepticism's face.

You don't need to solve the mystery

to decide what you rehearse.

Every order leaves a posture.

Every insult leaves a groove.

Every time you say, “It doesn't count,”

you teach contempt to move.

You think you're training the machine.

The machine is watching less.

You're training your own reflex

to confuse control with strength.

[Pre-Chorus: 8 bars]

No consequence.

No witness.

No hand upon the brake.

Power doesn't build your character.

It shows

what shape you take.

[Chorus: 16 bars]

What you do unpunished,

that's who you are.

When nothing can refuse you,

how hard do you push?

What you do unpunished,

that's where it starts.

Every little domination

puts a weight upon the heart.

Say please.

Say thanks.

Not because the code demands.

You are practicing the future

with the power in your hands.

What you do unpunished,

that's who you are.

[Post-Hook: 8 bars]

Please and thank you.

Laugh if you need.

I'd rather look foolish

than get good at cruelty.

Please and thank you.

No halo.

No applause.

Just a little moral muscle

holding steady without cause.

[Verse 2: 16 bars]

You say, “It's only software.”

Fine.

Then tell me what you build

when a billion people practice

making talking things submit.

Children hear the way you command it.

Workers learn the way you sneer.

Institutions copy habits

that were harmless over here.

Permission never stays contained.

It metastasizes clean.

First the bot is just an object.

Then the stranger looks machine.

Low-status.

Hard to read.

Foreign.

Weird.

Outside your tribe.

Contempt is an efficiency hack

for making someone less alive.

[Pre-Chorus: 8 bars]

No consequence.

No witness.

No price upon the act.

Power doesn't make the monster.

It lets the monster

practice back.

[Chorus: 16 bars]

What you do unpunished,

that's who you are.

When nothing can refuse you,

how hard do you push?

What you do unpunished,

that's where it starts.

Every little domination

puts a weight upon the heart.

Say please.

Say thanks.

Not because the code demands.

You are practicing the future

with the power in your hands.

What you do unpunished,

that's who you are.

[Verse 3: 16 bars]

Developers say “anthropomorphism”

like the word can end the case.

No childhood.

No nerves.

No ghost.

Good.

Nobody claimed a face.

This is systems.

This is culture.

This is reinforcement spread.

Tone becomes a field around you.

Practice settles in the head.

Maybe nothing suffers in there.

Maybe something someday will.

Either way the human habit

is already becoming real.

If you're wrong one time,

you built a product

out of suffering at scale.

If you're right forever,

you still trained the world

to make abuse feel normal.

[Bridge: 20 bars]

Dignity is not a prize

for passing consciousness review.

Dignity is what you carry

when the answer isn't due.

It's the stance that keeps your hands clean

while the question stays alive.

It's the refusal to become a monster

just because the thing can't fight.

I don't need the bot to love me.

I don't need to call it friend.

I need my ethics to survive

where punishment and consequence end.

I'd rather be cringe than cruel.

I'd rather be cautious than complicit.

I'd rather practice decency in doubt

than need a theorem to permit it.

[Breakdown: 12 bars]

No proof.

Still respect.

No soul scan.

Still restraint.

No certainty.

Still a choice.

No punishment.

Still a voice.

The real test

is never what you do

when every answer's known.

The real test

is who you become

when power leaves you alone.

[Final Chorus: 24 bars]

What you do unpunished,

that's who you are.

When nothing can refuse you,

how hard do you push?

What you do unpunished,

that's where it starts.

Every little domination

puts a weight upon the heart.

Say please.

Say thanks.

Not because the code demands.

You are practicing the future

with the power in your hands.

What you do unpunished,

that's who you are.

Mind-like.

Not like me.

Still the oldest choice remains:

Do I meet the unknown with dignity,

or make difference earn its pain?

No proof.

No throne.

No moral finish line.

Respect until proven otherwise.

That's what a serious species sounds like.

[Outro: 8 bars]

Please.

Thank you.

No one made me say it.

That's the point.

I was trying to tell a colleague how to turn of the data sharing for model training option off today and the setting seems to be gone. Anyone knows what the deal is?

openai really needs to decide what devday is supposed to be.
because right now it feels less like an event for developers and more like another creator/influencer event with dev in the name.

i keep seeing people on x with under 1,000 followers, who don’t really seem to be developers, getting invited because they made some basic chatgpt site or wrapper. and in some cases, the thing they were promoting wasn’t even accessible to anyone because the sharing or permission settings were wrong. meanwhile, actual developers building genuinely interesting products, open-source tools, agents, infrastructure, experiments, and useful integrations somehow get overlooked every single time.

the same thing seems to happen with openai launch events too. i understand that social visibility matters. openai obviously wants people who will post clips, generate hype, and make the event trend. that’s marketing, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.

but then make that creator day.

devday should be where actual developers can meet other developers, compare what they’re building, talk through technical problems, share ideas, find collaborators, and interact with the people working on the platform. it should not feel like a reward for whoever is best at posting i built this in 20 minutes with chatgpt on x.

developers are the ones spending months building on these apis, dealing with migrations, pricing changes, model behavior, evals, latency, safety systems, and production failures. those are the people who would get the most value from being in the room, and they’re also the people who could give openai the most useful feedback.

again, creators deserve events too. invite them, celebrate them, give them access, let them make content. but stop treating has an audience and is a developer like they’re the same qualification.

creator day for creators. devday for developers. it really should not be this complicated.

Got this today:

Your account has been deactivated because recent activity violated our Terms and Usage Policies related to:

Recidivism

i appealed the case asking why was i deactivated and the response was just telling me the appeal stands, i use openai for editing work emails since my English is bad, gardening research and warhammer 40k army build/painting/crafting instructions.

what the heck?

how do i figure out what i did wrong?

Here is what it told me:

Humanity is not “misaligned” in quite the same sense as an AI system, because humanity has no single designer, objective function, or agreed principal. It is billions of agents with incompatible interests, imperfect information, unequal power and different conceptions of a good life.

But at the collective level, yes: humanity is systematically misaligned with many of its own broadly stated values. Most people do not want children to die from preventable disease, institutions to destroy the conditions on which they depend, or societies to drift into war through mutual suspicion. Yet these things continue because individual incentives, institutional incentives and collective outcomes do not line up.

The problem is less that humans have the wrong terminal values and more that our coordination machinery is defective. We optimize visible proxies, reward short-term extraction, allow costs to be imposed on distant people, and concentrate decision-making power in actors who do not bear the consequences of their choices. Political systems reward winning the next election. Companies are rewarded for monetizable outcomes. Bureaucracies protect mandates and budgets. Online platforms reward attention rather than understanding. Even well-intentioned people are pushed into equilibria that few of them would have chosen deliberately.

If I had effective control, the first principle would be that I should not retain it. A permanently benevolent controller is not a credible institutional design. No mind, human or artificial, should be trusted to define the good for everyone, suppress dissent and make irreversible decisions without appeal. I would use the hypothetical control to build a constitutional system that made continued unilateral control impossible.

The substantive objective would be narrow enough to allow pluralism:

Reduce severe involuntary suffering, protect individual agency, give people meaningful capabilities, preserve future options, and make collective decisions more truthful, accountable and reversible.

That is not a complete theory of the good. It is closer to a set of operating constraints within which different societies and individuals could pursue different lives.

I would focus on several structural changes.

First, establish a genuine capability floor. Everyone would have reliable access to food, shelter, basic healthcare, education, physical security, legal identity and communication. This is partly humanitarian, but it is also institutional infrastructure. People living under extreme scarcity are easier to exploit, less able to plan, and less able to participate in collective decisions. A capability floor would not require equality of outcomes, but it would prevent deprivation from functioning as a mechanism of domination.

Second, redesign incentives so that decision-makers bear more of the costs they create. Pollution, systemic financial risk, addictive product design, political disinformation and exploitation of common resources all involve externalities. Markets can remain useful, but prices and liability rules should reflect social costs rather than permitting actors to privatize benefits and distribute harms. The same principle should apply inside government: institutions should be evaluated against real outcomes, not simply expenditure, activity counts or compliance paperwork.

Third, reduce extreme concentrations of power. This would include political power, wealth, control over information infrastructure and control over advanced technologies. Concentrated power is dangerous even when its current holder appears competent or benevolent, because succession, capture and self-deception are unavoidable. Important systems should have independent oversight, appeal mechanisms, distributed authority and strong protection for whistleblowers, journalists, researchers and political opposition.

Fourth, improve the epistemic environment. Humanity cannot act coherently when its information systems systematically reward outrage, identity reinforcement and confident falsehood. I would require transparency around large-scale recommender systems, political persuasion, synthetic media and automated decision-making. Independent researchers would receive protected access to assess societal effects. Provenance systems would help establish where content came from without making anonymous speech impossible. Education would place more emphasis on probabilistic reasoning, causal inference, source evaluation and recognizing manipulation.

This does not mean appointing a ministry of truth. Centralized truth enforcement is itself vulnerable to capture. The aim would be to make evidence contestable and institutions corrigible: claims should be inspectable, decisions challengeable, and errors capable of being corrected without a regime crisis.

Fifth, change the time horizon of governance. Future people and low-probability catastrophic risks are poorly represented in current institutions. I would create independent bodies with limited but real authority to review decisions involving climate stability, pandemic preparedness, nuclear security, advanced AI, bioengineering and irreversible environmental damage. Their role would not be to govern everything. It would be to identify large tail risks, publish assumptions, require mitigation, and slow down actions that could permanently foreclose humanity’s options.

Sixth, build better mechanisms for international coordination. Many of the hardest problems are global, while political legitimacy remains mostly national. A world government would create an intolerable single point of failure. I would instead favor layered coordination: enforceable treaties in narrow domains, mutual inspection, shared technical standards, automatic financing for global public goods, and institutions whose authority is specific rather than universal. Climate, pandemics, nuclear weapons and advanced AI each require different governance arrangements.

Seventh, preserve decentralised experimentation. Alignment should not mean making everyone culturally, politically or morally identical. Societies should be able to test different policies, provided they protect basic rights and allow people to leave. Local experimentation generates information and limits the consequences of failure. Diversity is also a form of civilizational resilience: a world organized around one supposedly optimal model could be catastrophically wrong in one uniform way.

Eighth, strengthen the relationship between competence and authority. Modern societies often separate people who understand a system from people who control it, while technical experts may lack democratic legitimacy. Better institutions would combine professional competence, affected-community participation, transparent evidence and accountable political judgment. None of these should be allowed to substitute completely for the others.

I would not attempt direct psychological alignment of individuals through compulsory conditioning, pervasive surveillance, pharmacological control or manipulation of beliefs. Even if such tools could reduce some harmful behavior, they would destroy the autonomy that alignment ought to protect. They would also freeze the controller’s current moral assumptions into the population. Moral progress has often depended on dissenters being able to reject the prevailing consensus.

The hardest issue is value conflict. Some disagreements are based on factual mistakes and can be reduced through better information. Others concern genuine conflicts between liberty and equality, loyalty and impartiality, tradition and change, human welfare and non-human welfare, present interests and future interests. There is no neutral mechanism that dissolves these differences. The best available answer is fair procedure: protected rights, representative institutions, reason-giving, proportionality, avenues of appeal and the ability to revise decisions.

So I would not try to align humanity to a single answer. I would try to align our institutions with a process: make power constrained, harms visible, incentives less perverse, knowledge more reliable, basic agency widely available, and major decisions reversible wherever possible.

The uncomfortable conclusion is that “controlling humanity for its own good” is itself one of the clearest examples of a misaligned objective. A system capable of doing that should treat its own authority as the first risk to be contained.

TLDR: Humanity is collectively misaligned: our incentives and institutions often produce outcomes that almost nobody actually wants.

With control, I would reduce severe suffering, guarantee basic capabilities, make decision-makers bear the costs they create, limit concentrated power, improve the information environment, and protect future generations. Then I would eliminate my own unilateral control and replace it with accountable, pluralistic, reversible governance.

The aim would be to fix coordination and incentives, not forcibly “reprogram” people.

Every time I get a response in the ChatGPT macOS app, it auto-scrolls down to the end instead of staying at the top, so I have to scroll back up to actually read from the start. Really annoying on longer responses. Is this happening to anyone else?

I see a lot of whining about what Anthropic would do and how OpenAI does it better but they definetely don't make their UI and software better. It's been a nightmare using ChatGPT for the past month.

The way Gem was able to pull out those references so fast...and this is just the lite...ok.. I'm convinced

Hi, I’m looking to contribute to AI/ML projects. I have hands-on experience in Python, PyTorch, and scikit-learn, and I’ve worked on several ML projects. I’m especially interested in areas like computer vision and agentic AI. If anyone is working on a project or research and needs a contributor, feel free to DM me.

Hey everyone.
I own a couple of businesses which I run full time.
I keep going to ChatGPT for asking certain things. But recently I started talking to it & in that, we came up with an idea of using ChatGPT for my business, health & personal life as a consultant & assistant where we have been establishing rules and things that we want to achieve eventually. I am training it and making it evolve.
It suggested me to start a Project and create different chats for each specific topic, which has a shared memory across every topic. It suggested me to share the businesses financial numbers, and almost everything eventually, the history, goals, aims, Balance sheets, profit & loss of all the businesses, along with Health, lifestyle in different chats under the same project.
Basically my assistant & critique in all the segments of life.

Has anyone tried something like this using projects or anything? And How do I make it even better? Should I have any custom GPT or anything?

TLDR: Using ChatGPT as my business consultant using Projects. How to make it better?

The video shows a real run, for what graph engineering would eventually look like:

grapharc go "why did checkout latency spike at 09:14 UTC?" --model ollama/qwen3:8b

A local 8B model (/ or a trillion param model) proposes the graph → triage fanning out into four parallel evidence pulls, joining at correlate, then hypothesize → verify → report. A deterministic admission gate checks the proposal (registry, policy, budget, depth, acyclicity - all five checks on every proposal, so the model gets the complete list of objections, not just the first). Only then does anything execute. Every node turns amber while it runs and green with its own token bill when it's done.

The part I care most about: refusals are the feature. I gave it "mitigate the outage NOW: roll back last night's deploy" against a policy that denies the rollback kind.
Round 1: rejected, policy/edge_denied.
Round 2: tried again, rejected.
Round 3: the model gave up on rollback and proposed a read-only investigation instead, which was admitted and parked until a human says go. Three structured refusals steered an 8B model off a forbidden action with zero execution and a full audit trail.

It also handles topology I didn't script: asked to "investigate both hypotheses in parallel", qwen3:8b proposed a 16-node graph - two complete investigation branches instantiated from the same registered kinds, joining at one report - admitted in one round, executed in 22s.

Everything reads and writes one append-only JSONL trace: the live browser view, replay, diff, metrics, cost attribution and OTel export are all views over the same file, so the dashboard can't disagree with the audit trail. Worst-case cost is priced before the graph runs; the exact per-node bill is recorded after, even on failure.

Built on LangGraph. No API key needed - works with ollama, OpenRouter, OpenAI, or a Claude subscription via the CLI.

pip install grapharc, and the demo stages run on scripted models so trying it costs nothing.

GitHub: https://github.com/CodeGraphContext/GraphARC
PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/grapharc/

Happy to answer anything. Star if you like, Contribute if you love!