People start to hate AI

People start to hate AI.

It's a very interesting phenomenon. Stronger than anything we witnessed before.

This negative emotion is tangible - in social media, in communities, in legislation.

4 years ago, AI was a curiosity.

1 year ago, it was still interesting.

Now it is ubiquitous - so people started hating it, en masse.

The reason is the SPEED of the change.

AI is a storm. It doesn't need 100 years, or 10 years - like fire, automobiles, electricity, or email. It changes everything, now.

So, we are all scared.

And our reaction becomes irrational.

It's more irrational than people burning books, when we were afraid of new ideas.

More irrational than Samurais, Zulus, and Amerindians charging with arrows and spears, against rifles, railways, and machine guns.

Of course, people post-rationalize this irrational hate. It's a typical process: First we feel emotions, than we post-rationalize. And the post-rationalizations are usually exaggerated; extreme. AI is the Devil - or sometimes a God.

"Datacenters are killing the planet / consume all our electricity / water" (no, they are not. The energy consumption is quite small, compared to... everything else).

"AI is taking over our jobs" (well, yes, but it is also creating even more jobs).

"AI will set us free, and nobody will need to work again" (of course not) (corollary: let's tax AI / robots. Bill Gates keeps saying this, since 2017...)

"AI is stupid, and cannot replace humans / artists / lawyers etc" (this contradicts the previous argument, but well).

"AI cannot invent anything original" (well, maybe - but neither can you).

"AI will take over the world and kill us all" (no, it is not).

"AI doesn't know what it's doing, doesn't have awareness and intentionality" (again: this contradicts the previous argument, but well - who cares about logical contradictions in an irrational post-rationalization).

The key reason for this hate: the same as ever: fear of the new. Fear of technology. Fear of change.

Geniuses like Asimov, or Frank Herbert, forecasted this. They looked at history and arrived at the same conclusion: people hate change.

Asimov wrote about the C/Fe (carbon/iron) culture: impact of robots, rejection and hate of robots, good robots vs. bad robots, adaptation to C/Fe, changes in industry, economy, legislation; moral and ethical impact. 

So here we are. We will set barriers, impose legislation, block datacenters, and we'll set robots on fire.

And in the end, we will create the best brave new world.

Because AI is here to stay, and will change this world.

Art is easy. Science is hard

 My (sarcastic) answer ref. the quality and value of art: I recognize only the authority of the Supreme High Council for the Certification of Art Quality.

In other words, the quality of art is not a valid, falsifiable, reproduceable question. There are no authorities, standards, or units of measurement for the quality of art.

Until five years ago, the definition of art (and of artistic quality) was a rather inconsequential problem. Art quality was a topic for salons of bored intellectuals, who would debate questions such as: what is the value of a painting made by a monkey, or by a child? 

In fact, we had quite a few famous experiments with experts unable to distinguish between kindergarten drawings and abstract paintings valued at millions.

And here comes AI. 

And we make this astonishing discovery, that it is incredibly easy to make art, but incredibly difficult to do science and engineering. 

Any monkey or child can draw or sing something that we can then interpret artistically in a million different ways (“what did the artist mean?”). 

But only one researcher in a million is capable of discovering and proving a valid, reliable, reproducible scientific theory.

The bar for AGI is ever higher

Every year, AI becomes significantly stronger. But we keep raising the bar for AGI - "real" Artificial General Intelligence.

<< Yes, AI is smart, but cannot solve math problems. So it's not real intelligence.>>

<<Yes, it solves simple math problems, but not difficult problems. >>

<<Yes, it solves complex math problems, but cannot reason. >>

<< Cannot write poems. Cannot draw. Cannot compose music >>

Well, now it can.

One year ago, ChatGPT even passed the Turing test for AI. Still nobody noticed.

The Turing test is the single most important test for AI. The imitation game. Designed over 50 years ago. The single simplest measurable test of real intelligence. Never passed - at least until last year.

Read more about the Turing test: https://blog.stefanmorcov.com/2022/12/can-ai-pass-turing-test-lets-ask-chatgbt.html

OpenAI ChatGPT passed the Turing test in April 2025

But we simply raised the bar even higher. "There is no AGI".

It's not tech acceleration. It's an avalanche

I'm reading the printed Financial Times and Daily Mail - for the first time in maybe 10 years. 

Courtesy of Austrian Airlines, who offers wifi, but internet connection not working, so only static content is available (i.e. scanned newspapers). 

Very interesting experience. The gap between online and offline content is amazing.

The printed version is interesting. But... static. No search /filter /browse. Not summarizable. No right-click for additional details, or research /deep search. 

This is a good moment to realize how fast our world is changing. Today's society is significantly different from 10 years ago. The tools used now are so different. It's not only a change between generations. A 10 year gap in learning /re-training is now enormous: it makes you obsolete.

THIS TRANSFORMATION made me change significantly my view on the speed of history, and tech acceleration.

Until a few years ago, I thought that the acceleration was an illusion. A time bias, when we consider recent events as more important than distant events. A kind of speed fallacy, where the nearest objects seem faster than distant objects. I thought that 50k years ago, innovation was as fast as today, but we cannot see it from our distance. (Except for propagation, which obviously was much slower - information travelled by foot, not by internet).

I no longer believe that the transformation is linear.

SEE: there was almost no difference between the tools used 1 mil years ago, and 100k years ago. We used pretty much the same stone tools, or pottery. If you woke up after 5k years, your life wouldn't change very much.

There was almost no difference between the agriculture of 5k years ago, and 300 years ago. If you woke up in a hundred years, you would use similar tools, and grow similar crops.

BUT if you now work in any blue-collar job (modern farm, retailer, factory, delivery, distribution), you operate robots, drones, and satellites that didn't exist 10 years ago.

Or, if you work in a white-collar job, any job that handles information, then you use email and internet that didn't exist 30 years ago; and E-commerce, CRM, videoconference, cloud, content, collaboration, analytics, and productivity tools that didn't exist 5-10 years ago.

Even more: we use AI today, which didn't exist 1 year ago. 

So, printed newspapers, or any static content, are now anacronic.

Of course some people still read printed news. Well, some people are still hunting and gathering, aren't they. But printed information is already anacronic.

We cannot afford to ignore the technology avalanche. 

We live in a completely new world, every year.

The modern "iron-carbon civilization" predicted by Isac Asimov

 Isac Asimov perfectly predicted (in 1950) our social resistance to AI.

We are afraid of technology (we always are).

Afraid of losing jobs - to robots.

Ethical issues.

Fear of the unknown. Fear of change.

In his novels, Asimov designed and examined societies with few stupid robots, and with few very smart robots; societies that rely on massive cheap robot labour; balanced societies; as well as societies largely manipulated by robots.

He invented the concept of "iron-carbon civilization", to describe the dynamics of humans and robots/AI, how we learn to cooperate, and coexist.

This is what we witness today !

We learn what AI is, and does. 

We get INCREDIBLE economic benefits.

We revolt, and resist. 

We define artificial rules for what AI-generated art is, vs. "real" art. 

We create AI agents to simulate exactly what we do. We bitch that AI cannot imitate us perfectly.

We detect AI-generated work, and then we train AI agents to avoid detection.

We are afraid.

We adapt.

We live in tremendous times. 

[Social experiment: this post has zero-AI. Did anyone notice? Is this good, or bad?]

The Cookie & AI Banner is coming to the EU

Get ready for Cookie-Banner.v2 — aka the “Cookie & AI Banner.” Every app and website in Europe will display the notification: “this site uses cookies and AI.” And a purple magic wand, because these days everything is “AI-powered,” and AI seems to love purple.

The new EU AI Act starts applying transparency rules in August 2026. Chapter IV, Article 50 (“Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems”) requires explicit disclosure in several cases: users must be informed when they interact with AI systems; AI-generated content must be marked as artificial; and deepfakes or certain AI-generated public-interest texts must be disclosed as AI-generated or manipulated. 

Which is funny, because AI is already mainstream: 30–40% of people already use generative AI tools.

So, all websites and apps will simply modify the cookie banner to mention AI.

And, the new Cookie & AI banner will be exactly as useless, irrelevant, and ignored by everyone, as the current one.

(AI) Technology doesn't democratize efficiency. It benefits early adopters

Technology doesn't democratize things. Initially, it benefits early adopters. Those with the resources and education to adopt and adapt fast. 

The new tech buzzword is: AI agents make everybody more efficient.

Yes, it does. But not equally.

It's a good punchline and buzzword, saying that technology democratizes things - information, knowledge, education, transportation, resources, communication, or, with contemporary AI agents: work efficiency.

But this is rarely true.

I don't remember any technological innovation who really democratized things - at least at first. 

Technology tends to benefit first the rich and the educated - those who already have the capacity to invest, absorb and adapt faster. 

Yes, technology trickles down, eventually. But not immediately. 

It was the same with automobiles - first adopters were rich people; later beneficiaries were industrialists who sold (Ford Model T) affordable cars to the working class. 

Same with writing, printing, books, and newspapers: for hundreds of years, the beneficiaries were still the upper and middle classes, who were already literate, or had the resources to educate their children. For hundreds of years after Gutenberg, the majority of the population remained illiterate and didn't really benefit. Intergenerational mobility was significantly lower at the time, when education was a luxury, and most children had to start working VERY early in factories or agriculture. 

Same with the internet and email: first few years, it was reserved for universities, researchers, top tech entrepreneurs, academia, financial magnates - not everybody. 

So no, AI is not for everybody, it doesn't democratize first, and it doesn't benefit everybody equally. We have to move and adapt fast.

New relevant study (from Marius Comper): 

https://www.ft.com/content/0873e3cb-cb02-4b47-941f-14da74149670?fbclid=IwdGRjcARa7tVjbGNrBFruyGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHtvpmg9E9NL4vg8-W7XJcFqyz5I2YLwqWuTkFra4mwAO2yOhKZZzgCDBPoPh_aem_WAnPyG78hQSzOTJtuOIDVw

See also discussion 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18YjsXCRPB/

AI is MAGIC in procurement. Or is it?

AI is MAGIC. Or is it?

At least, that's what everyone seems to believe right now.

✨ I've been building AI into Hermix for years. Using it daily. Testing it across dozens of real procurement scenarios with real companies. And I can tell you: Arthur C. Clarke had it right. Sufficiently advanced technology really is indistinguishable from magic.

The problem is when people stop there.

Because AI is also not magic. And in public procurement, confusing the two is expensive.

✔️ Here's what I've actually seen work. GPT models reading 300-page tender documents and producing structured summaries in minutes. Machine learning cleaning up years of fragmented procurement data across 250,000+ European authorities. AI Chat answering "which experts are required?" or "what's the minimum turnover?" directly from the document, in seconds. GraphRAG and Deep Reasoning handling the complex multi-hop analysis that standard models get wrong. SearchGPT building buyer profiles that would take a junior analyst two days to assemble manually.

This is real. The numbers back it up. 87% reduction in market research time. 75% reduction in tender analysis time. 60% less time writing proposals. Our users at Capgemini, Accenture, Unisys, Fujitsu, and 50+ other companies work this way every day.

❌ But here's what I've also seen fail.

Relying on AI to generating "original" ideas. AI missing cultural, technical or commercial subtext - that changes the entire meaning of evaluation criteria. Non-supervised AI producing output confident enough to submit and wrong enough to lose a bid. These failures are real too. And they happen more often when teams treat AI as a black box rather than a tool that requires judgment and supervision. Then comes disillusionment.

AI in procurement compresses effort dramatically. It does not replace strategic thinking.

The companies winning consistently in public sector are not the ones using the most AI. They are the ones using AI for the right tasks, at the right stages, with human judgment at the decision points that matter.

Finding the right tenders. Understanding buyers before the RFP drops. Qualifying opportunities with real competitive data. Reducing the manual burden of documentation. These are the jobs AI does well.

Deciding whether to bid. Understanding what the buyer actually wants versus what they wrote. Building a differentiated technical approach. These remain human work.

❓ There is also a question worth sitting with. If AI writes the procurement. Writes the proposal. Evaluates the submission. What exactly are we measuring? I don't have a clean answer. But I think it matters that we're asking it.

I've written a longer piece on this. What works, what doesn't, the specific techniques we use at Hermix (GraphRAG, Deep Reasoning, SearchGPT, citation support), and the adoption barriers nobody talks about honestly.

https://hermix.com/ai-is-magic-or-is-it/

AI is magic?

BUBBLE 1. AI is magic, everybody is replaced by AI, software engineers disappear, people don't need to work anymore, we are all gonna have fun, everything is great.

BUBBLE 2. AI is magic, everybody is replaced by AI, creativity is killed by GPT, software engineers disappear, everybody loses their jobs, the stock market crashes, AI will take over the world, the world is doomed. 

MIDDLE GROUND: AI replaces only people who do repetitive boring tasks, and cannot adapt. AI cannot replace human creativity. AI doesn't replace software architects and engineers. Vibe coding is still a myth. We will benefit from AI to improve our lives, society and economy. 

Negativity and opportunities: again

Most people have a negative attitude.

We see problems and risks, rather than opportunities.

And negativity increases with age.

As we get older, our appetite for risk decreases. We become more conservative. We are afraid of change. We see fewer opportunities, as we have more to lose. Loss aversion bias appears. Potential losses seem more important than gains.

And we tend to see only problems, only the negative side of things. “The world is doomed, nothing works, education collapses, things were better in the past, today’s immoral youth, technology is dangerous, AI will destroy humanity.”

Of course, looking for problems is also a pragmatic, engineering mindset. You need to see problems - to start looking for solutions. In fact, every opportunity starts with a problem. Solutions rarely appear before problems (although it happens, and occasionally even disruptive).

I pushed myself for so long to think in terms of opportunities rather than risks, that it became a reflex.

I am conservative by nature, and I had to train my sense of opportunity.

Now I have an allergic reaction when I see fear of technology, fear of new, risk reports that block opportunities.

AI replaces software programmers and composers, yet?

After three years of AI revolution, I still believe that major technological revolutions create jobs and businesses. They don’t create unemployment. The invention of the plow didn’t put gatherers out of work. The printing press sparked a phenomenal boom in the book industry and jobs: printing houses, publishers, libraries, writers, translators.

AI won’t lead to the disappearance of software and technology companies either. It will multiply them. 

(Rant triggered by very cool discussions with Vlad Coroama, Mihai Amariutei, Alexander Kruel).

As for how much software programming will actually change, I have reservations. 

I first said it 25 years ago: Software developers are cheap, and replaceable. But software is much more than that. We need architects and engineers; not coders. We need people who understand mathematics, algorithms, data, patterns, design, methodology. "Writing code" is a low-level job, and requires low-level qualifications.

This is even more true today - when AI replaces more and more low-level jobs.

But:

DOES AI REPLACE REAL DEVELOPERS?

=> NO.

We write code every day, at Hermix. With AI. 

From our experience, AI isn’t miraculous, yet. Surely it helps. But it doesn’t replace us - it just helps us. It is a fast, limited assistant.

SO WHAT ABOUT ALL THE STORIES ABOUT VIBE CODING?

Every day, we read about a new AI agent writing an entire application from scratch. 

An AI agent wrote a C compiler. Another migrated an Nintendo game to run in the browser. A non-tech guy built an entire web app in 10 minutes. An AI invented a new game (ask for links).

Are these true?

Well, some are true, but they are anecdotic, exaggerated, not replicable.

If you examine them closely, none is a genuine example of truly innovative real-world application, built from scratch without human help.

It is trivial to write a C compiler in 2026. We already have thousands of open-source C compilers. 

It is trivial to rewrite an application from one language to another.

AI-generated code has security / architecture /design problems, needs huge corrections and rewrites to make it viable.

I keep an open mind, I read and follow developments, I test new stuff (never enough). But I haven’t seen a reliable case of a real, original application entirely generated by AI - yet.

That being said:

I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN AI and the AI REVOLUTION.

It is already transformative, it revolutionizes the society and economy.

As of now, AI doesn't operate independently. Doesn't replace teams of developers, nor music composers, painters, translators.

It only helps them.

AI remains an assistant, for those programmers / architects / composers / managers who are smart enough to control an army of AI agents. Essentially the same visionaries who already knew how to coordinate teams of human agents, to achieve original, impressive results.

The reality is that we now have (many) agents that can quickly solve deterministic computational problems. But we’re still talking about armies of junior agents — unoriginal, not very smart, and very fast. 

The Metaverse is officially dead

Mark Z. officially confirmed the death of the Metaverse. Fired the full team. Closed the project. A failure of 70 bil. USD. 

We all knew that it wouldn't work. 

I said it wouldn't work, from before testing the VR headset.

I confirmed that it doesn't work after buying and testing the VR kit. 

E.g https://blog.stefanmorcov.com/2023/03/the-metaverse-is-dead.html

The technology is not there yet. VR quality and feeling is low, like a smartphone from 2002. Low resolution and image quality. No solution for a keyboard or mouse. No integration with desktop or mobile. 

No business use case or benefit.

No serious advantage over using a phone or computer, and paying in Eur/ USD.

Which led to a shocking lack of content: no business applications, no 3D movies (!!), few and poor 3D games.

A friend gave me the best illustration of the uselessness of the technology. He was using the VR headset for (1) playing ping-pong with his brother - who lives next door, and (2) watching movies with his girlfriend - in the same room.

I strongly believe in the future of VR. But we need another Steve Jobs to revolutionize the technology and concept.

The great modern urban myth: no, AI doesn't replace programmers

AI doesn't replace programmers. It's a modern urban myth.

The net is full of stories about how AI/GPT writes full product code, and replaces programmers. 

It's an urban myth.

It sounds cool. But it's wrong.

AI/GPT is great at boring repetitive tasks. Great at searching. SearchGpt replaces successfully most manuals and documentation. It is even much faster and better than Stackoverflow.

It's also useless for solving any original or complex problem. It makes silly mistakes, writes redundant code, and doesn't really "understand" anything.

Yes, I write code, I love AI, we use it extensively, and I use GPT every day. AI is great. Technology is great.

But no. There is no "product" fully written by AI, by amateurs. 

It's a modern urban myth.

AGI and "true reasoning", vs "AI" and "reasoning. How society handles language mis-use and abuse

Obviously, current AI is not really intelligent, doesn't have "true reasoning" or "true understanding". And we may argue (scientifically) that the terminology is wrong. Which it is. 

But this will not change the way people use, and mis-use, words.

What we do, when words are mis-used or abused, is invent new words.

So, we say AGI (General Artificial Intelligence), and "true reasoning", to clarify that "AI" and "reasoning" are improper terms.

AI intoxication, AI poisoning, and Google bombing

AI intoxication is probably even harder than Google bombing, or Wikipedia astroturfing. Which is already incredibly difficult by now.

But it's coming. It's bound to be a thing,

Same as Google bombing, and Wikipedia Astroturfing.

We need a new name for this. AI intoxication? AI poisoning?

N.b. Google bombing is a method to trick Google to return a specific, fake result, to a specific search query. It exploits Google's algorithm that relies mostly on the number and reliability of websites that link to a specific webpage.

Astroturfing is the practice of creating a false appearance of grassroots support for a cause, product, person, or policy. It manipulates public perception by making it seem like a lot of people are behind a particular opinion.

Wikipedia Astroturfing is a method to trick the crowd-sourced editorial process of Wikipedia, which relies on reputation and wide consensus.

Engineering complexity: because it works !

Why do we build complex products, like smart phones, AI, or Hermix?

Because complexity works. It delivers benefits and value, to the economy and society. And this is particularly true of modern engineering. We build complex products, for complex organizations, even if sometimes more fragile, or expensive, or risky. Because they work. These are thoughts about product and engineering complexity, from our Hermix webinar of 27. Nov 2024, with Arian Turhani, VP Capgemini for European institutions, and Alin Izvoran, public procurement expert: AI for public procurement and sales. Complexity has 2 major aspects: structural, and dynamic. Structural complexity means composed of many varied interrelated parts. A modern car has thousands of interdependent components. A modern AI neural network has hundreds of billions, even a trillion nodes. Dynamic complexity relates to uncertainty and ambiguity. It is characterized by emergence, nonlinearity, adaptiveness, propagation, chaos. This is where we get Taleb’s black swans and Lorenz’ butterfly effects. These systems are difficult to predict and control, even if we have sufficient information about their components. It was Aristotle who first described the phenomenon of really complex environments, 2300 years ago, as he famously said that the whole is not only more, but in fact it is different than the sum of the parts. And some of the effects of complexity are positive. The whole is not only different, but also better. These complexity manifestations also occur in relation to modern engineering technology. This is also what we are also building with Hermix. We build more than a tool with significant economic and efficiency benefits. We build a complex ecosystem. We create a new paradigm, with policy implications; such as increase in transparency and competition. We help create a better market environment.

Full video on Hermix website.

AI/GPT is a genius idiot slave

 I use AI/GPT as my genius idiot slave. 

Very pedantic. Obedient. Hard working. Great memory. 

Unable to understand the context.

It works. 

You must know HOW to ask,

how to evaluate the answer, 

AND you need patience.

So, what works great for me? 

Search and summarize a very general question, a book, a movie, a problem.

Correct my spelling, find synonyms, antonyms, rephrase text.

Write standard software code.

What doesn't work: solve a niche software problem, invent a new solution to a new problem, find a niche book, especially not published in English.

 

My basic example of tonight: I had a very niche problem: 'check if the value of an Excel cell is N/A or ""'

GPT4 was not able to solve it. Excel has a weird way to evaluate expressions and errors, so the simple solution always returns N/A, instead of True or False.

"AI Prompt Engineering" is an elementary skill.

 "AI Prompt Engineering" is not a new job. 

It is an elementary skill. 

Basic "digital literacy".

For at least 20 years, "Office, email and internet" have been mandatory in all CVs.

You must now add "Prompt engineering". 

Prompt engineering is the ability to ask questions and obtain relevant, useful answers or text from GPT (and other LLM/AI tools).

I could never list " MS Office" in my CV skills. Not only that I memorized most Office shortcuts, but I've been writing VBScript macros and Java/C++ OLE automation code ever since grad school (thanks Ionut, I learned so much from you). Listing Office or Internet as a skill would be silly: I can actually write their code.

Similarly, I cannot list "prompt engineering" as a skill. I strive to become an AI expert, of course. ChatGpt says that an AI Specialist is a master in machine learning, data science, and artificial intelligence; managing NLP; Python, R, or Java; ML libraries such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-Learn.

But yes:

Prompt engineering is now the basic digital literacy skill, to add to all CVs.

 

L.e. Great comment 

from Tavi Paunescu on FaceBook: At least Office was a clearly defined suite, current AI big names are black boxes. So "engineering" against a black box :)

My reply: Any sufficiently advanced technology is not distinguishable from magic. See also Strugatki's picnick. ChatGpt says it's Arthur C Clarke.

L.e.2 Great comment 

from Smaranda Spizzico: how can I learn?

My reply: great question. Thanks!

ChatGpt says:

Prompt: How can you learn prompt engineering?

Answer: [...] Start with General Prompts: Experiment with simple, straightforward prompts. Notice how the wording, structure, and even tone can affect the output. For example, try using different formats like questions, commands, or step-by-step instructions.

Understand Prompt Types: There are descriptive prompts, directive prompts, few-shot prompts (where you give the model examples), and chain-of-thought prompts (where you guide the model step-by-step). Experimenting with each type will help you understand which works best for various tasks.[...]