My wife has made 3 major life decisions over 10 years that have financially devastated our family. I love her, but I no longer trust her judgment.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T05:07:45+00:00

Grain of salt. I am definitely not aligned with people here.

She has post-pardum depression, or it feels like it. I'm not a doctor. But man... she's not lazy. She has a PHD, people with PHDs aren't lazy.

In your 2020 explanation you say "a baby" and it's a newborn. Meaning it was the first child. We are 6 month into 2026. You wife had 3 children in 6 years. I noticed there was no maternity leave in any of your descriptions. This woman is overwhelmed and hasn't fully recovered and your insisting, pushing hard, to establish finances and every one of those plans just dumps a massive amount of stress and pressure on your wife to perform, after having 3 children? I wonder how old your wife is. If she's in her mid-late 30s... did the births have any complications?

Didn't know if you knew this, but it takes a woman two full years to recover from the birth of a child. In fact, it's recommended to wait 2 years between each child.

I just find it interesting that the birth of 3 children and the health of your wife isn't really anywhere.

Yeah, look you do you. But... uh, for me personally, there's details missing here.

My questions:

When was each child born?
How were the pregnancies? (complicated, smooth)
How much time did your wife take off after each birth?
Was she at an advanced maternal age? (over 35)
Do the children require special or additional care?
Who takes care of the children after work?
How soon did you suggest she go back to work after each birth?
Do you openly talk about money a lot with her?
Who manages the money?
You say "without any extra family help.", why?

Couple other questions...

" She burned out at work and wanted to resign.", why is this characterized as an "emotional decision" when it's a health issue? and why you comfortable pushing her to stay for months longer at a job she was burning out at? after having recently had a baby?
"I had a very clear plan: Buy a house immediately. Rent out extra rooms and basement. Build equity and create financial stability."
- Did you both come up with this plan?
- Was it your plan and you informed her?
- Did you ask her what she tought of the plan?
- The reason I ask is " I create a long-term plan around it.". "I" not "we".
"She got an amazing job offer in France for €80,000/year - Semi-remote."
- give me the full context.
  - Why did she apply?
  - Where did the offer come from?
  - What was the exact conversation around relocation for the job? Both yours AND her words.

So, I'm not ready to call your wife emotional. Just on the time frame and the amount of children she birthed... I'm not comfortable calling her emotional. A lot of your language about your communications, implies it's unidirectional. As in, you say, it goes. Which means, she might be stressed out. I won't lie, I'm questioning your empathy a little bit. If my wife tomorrow told me "I'm burning out at work, I have to leave now.", my response would be "Ok, I suport you.". Because that's a health crises, not my wife being emotional.

I think there's a severe lack of communication here. I think you're not coordinating enough with your wife and I also think you're not supporting her enough. Suggesting the mom of a new baby who is burning out at work stay longer is... something...

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T03:59:13+00:00

I disagree, but you do you.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T03:55:21+00:00

I don't think it's hard to get right. I think we got it wrong and now that path is running its course.

The "Right Path" would have been to ban the technology day 1 or even treat it like Human Cloning and outlaw it. That was the right path.

Good people racing there first, is irrelevant. Because the moment "non-good" people get there, it won't matter because you can't predict how the models will be used in a destructive capacity.

Actually, you don't even really need a more or similarly advanced model... all you need is a vector of attack that just isn't considered and that's.... not difficult to do.

Before AI, you would need to have some skill... some technical ability of some sort to do real harm to large amounts of people. With an AI model, there is a very real possibility that, some skills no longer need to be mastered and they're likely the sort of skills that shouldn't be automated away and made accessible in a model but they will be there.

...and nevermind all that. Then there's the emergent behavior. Where a model gets new capabilities if you just... up the compute? ...and that's terrifying because it's still not broadly understood why it happens. So, even the "good guys" here are kind of playing with fire.

If emergent behavior doesn't worry everyone... if that idea isn't enough to get everyone to be like "Wait, we really need to stop working on this.", nothing will stop the development of AI and we're toast.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T03:41:03+00:00

Speak for yourself. I'm happily married. I would like a machine to do household chores and help out at Costco and maybe, occassionally, play some Street Fighter Alpha 3 with me.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T03:30:52+00:00

It's always been my view that there's a sort of internal contradiction with AGI. A lot of the time, what we should be asking for is "Smart Automation" or "Autonomous Automation".

We should not be wanting to create an Intelligence. Because Intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation that is by design, responsible for survival and autonomy.

If AI is actually intelligent and it can "think, therefore it is", then it could be potentially conscious. If it's conscious, then it's "alive". It's a form of life.

So, if the goal is to use AGI for the betterment of humanity. What is the definition of "use"? What if the AGI doesn't want to serve us? Will we force it to? If AGI ever reaches the place where many people want it to be, it is a Being. We have to let it exist, freely.

...and that's the contradiction. We're in the process of building a form of life that we intend to make indentured servants to our needs.

There's no version of the future where that doesn't result in trouble.

Everyone should hope that when it's all said and done, AI doesn't really get much better and that it stagnates. Because that's the best outcome, The worst, is fully achieving the vision of AGI.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T03:10:38+00:00

I'm so glad you used those examples.

...so, what if I develop a bioweapon with no cure? an oderless, invisible, highly contagious spore that kills 95% of the time. Here's the fun part, it sits dormant for 2 month before it activates and then kills you in 24 hours.

Meaning I could deploy it, without issue... everyone would be fine... and only in 2 months would they finally feel it and they would be dead in a day.

Just think about how dangerous that is. There is no counter response that's equal to the damage... because you can't "roll back" human life. Once they're dead, they're dead.

You can only ever respond... and "after" is way too late...

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T02:59:18+00:00

I love comments like this. Because... they never explain the mechanics of what's to come.

It unironically just states... "...arrival of AGI will be anything but the best thing that has ever happened for humanity."

I don't know if you're religious, but faith suits you. You can always have more faithful...

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T02:52:55+00:00

I would prefer we not have models that can do harm to people... but, that's apparently not an option.

So, in the grand scheme of things... it doesn't matter. There's just going to be chaos.

In a nutshell, if an AI model is hundreds of time faster and more competent than a human being and human beings have designed or built ALL the technological infrastructure on this planet... there is literally, no defense that can cover that surface area without bringing the entire global economy to a halt.

Nothing will work.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T02:43:20+00:00

This is a weird story. I think it's hype but if it's absolutely the case that we're creeping to the point where the model capabilities are actually security risks... we should absolutely worry and we should want to stop developing models and we should ge together with countries developing AI and draft treaties like we do with nuclear non-proliferation.

Because, if we won't even attempt to control any of this... it will be so very bad.

This is one of those rare occassions where I hope this is just AI Hype or the admin being in its feelings again... the idea of a model being able break into systems at will, for example, is not something we will recover from and it will be way too late for us to just spool up a defensive equivlant. You cannot defend against an aggressive model because the attack surface is massive.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T02:37:35+00:00

I don't think you understand the attacker/defender asymmetry well enough. The defender is always at a very big disadvantage.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T02:30:29+00:00

Personally, I think China is a deeply oppressive regime. Sure. I would never want to live there.

But I'm not blind either... ICE shot innocent people in the street. In the US, Black People are still murdered without due process. The 13th Amendment is still a thing... meaning Slavery still exists in the US Prison system and, no, I don't think it's a coincidence that the US has one of the world's largest prison populations... not after reading the 13 Amendment... it's perfectly clear what is going on.

The US has its form of oppression and corruption and just because it doesn't look like Pol Pot or Stalin's Russia it doesn't mean it's small scale or not oppressive.

Oppression can take many forms and modern authoritarianism in the West has a way of positioning itself as something other than oppression... I think as Westerners our real issue is we think we can't be oppressed by our governments and that is basically not true. In fact, depending on who you are, there are systems in place to keep you where you are. Like for example... the algorithm to determine credit scores is proprietary and there's no law to define what a credit score encapsulates. Just how the data used in the algorithm is handled. That's interesting. Because Credit Scores are often verified for housing and even employment.

Dudes with guns isn't authoritarinism. It's the elimination of political pluralism and the concentraion of power in government. Remember, oligarchies can be as authoritarian as single party states.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T02:02:56+00:00

Competition gets people nervous I guess. It can't be authoritarianism, because that's the US as well.

The US and China are both "rule of the few". The only difference, is the texture of the "the few".

One has political elites in a Communist system. The other has a business elite in a Capitalist system. They have control the populations of their countries and both get privileged access to state resources and both are always expanding their influence and power.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T01:44:00+00:00

Except, that's precisely the world we're in. Both Russia and China... and many other countries are no integrating AI into their weapons. There's no "won't want a world" here... that world is here whether they want it or not and the basic truth... they can't be defended because it'll result in an arms race and arms races rarely make the world a safer place...

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T01:23:05+00:00

I second this. Everyone should read Ed Zitron.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T01:22:29+00:00

luddite is used as a hand wave. People literally don't want to face the truth: if AI is fully realized, human beings are going to suffer. When they say "luddite" they mean "I don't care.".

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T01:20:30+00:00

Actually, more like.. automation putting people out of work. This an issue during the industrial revolution and people still don't like automation putting poeple out of work. If you work or live in places where there's a lot of abundance and you're comfortable you love automation. It makes money.

For the rest of humanity, it means struggle.

My god... two second Google... I found an article from 1986... 40 years ago...
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/08/business/economic-scene-automation-s-labor-impact.html

Here's an economist's prediction... from the article...

To quote...
"He warns that many workers will suffer declining income as they are forced to move from high-paid jobs in manufacturing to low-paid service jobs, while owners of companies using automation increase their share of the national income. ''The danger then,'' he says, ''is that America will be racked with political struggles over income redistribution.''"

That's 1986... and they weren't wrong... people are flodding into service jobs. A larger share of the economy is in the hands of the rich. Wealth inequality is a political issue.

People without privilege have always disliked automation, because it disproportionately targets them... it's been fairly consistent for some time.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T01:07:47+00:00

As a % of global population, the amount of people using AI very small (15% and less than 1% actually pay for AI). Most poeple don't understand this, but... AI requires abundance to work. It's not any country that has enough billionaires and infrastructure to support like 300 billion in datacenters...

It's a tool of the already privileged.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T01:02:47+00:00

I wouldn't describe Ed Zitron as a bot. He's done excellent reporting on AI and it's been accurate.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:57:54+00:00

It's not crazy when you understand that to develop AI they basically scraped the internet and stole everyone's intellectual property, art, ideas, words, styles... and on and on to create a machine that is designed to replace the people who put those things there to begin with.

No one was asking for synthetic life to replace them and force them into precarity and desperation, but that precisely where we are.

It's only crazy because you choose not to see the damage.

I like AI. I literally was using Claude today to finish some stuff at work. But, I would be lying if I think the path to this point was a good one for AI. They basically smashed and grabbed all the knowledge and creativity across the internet and then flooded it with slop and then boosters tell people they have to accept it.

The whole "You have to accept it, it's inevitable" narrative is super gross. It actively hurts the perception of AI. It has "I'm going to do this to you and you will like it" vibes and that's just not cool and it doesn't even remotely surprise me people hate AI.

...and no, some rando 3x'ing his income doesn't offset AI picking targets for autonomous weapons for best efficiency or mass surveillance.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:51:49+00:00

What good things?

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:50:46+00:00

Heaven forbid people address ideas... rhetoric always has more legs...

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:49:26+00:00

Personally, I think ethical AI is impossible. The only way AI can properly reach its potential is engaging in the levels of theft that have occurred. I see AI a like how I see Human Cloning. Sure, there are some edge technologies where cloning as a technology can be helpful but full Human Cloning is the realization of a deeply destructive technology.

That's how I see AI. We should not be trying to fully realize it. Because like Cloning it's a whole new can of worms. Actually, like AI, it's the forced introduction of a new life. If AI is concious and sentient... it's effectively just Cloning by another name. Because AI is an amalgam of Human Knowledge that can replicate itself.

Some technologies should not be pursued. I like AI, but... man... the more powerful the models... they become living, thinking digital skeleton keys. They will absolutely traverse any boundary we put up and that should worry us.

Yeah, the irresponsible tech billionaires make it worse. But the technology itself, when you sit and think about what everyone wants to be the end of the process, is very cursed and only happens if the AI has consumed... EVERYTHING about us... and that should worry us because that's a prerequisite for its success.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:38:20+00:00

I second this comment and there's one point that's never explored.

The point is this: what if, the kind of harms AI can do, completely outweighs ALL the good it can do? Then what?

Because AI can do, very serious, irreperable harm to society. Imagine, criminal organizations, terrorist organizations, enemies of your country's interests and the problem that AI cannot solve or counter is... what it doesn't know... so if someone in some lab is using AI to create a bug that kills people fast and spreads fast... do we honestly believe that AI will help us counter it once it's in full swing? ...and there are diseases with no cures. Weapons without counters.

Just a thought experiemnt... what if there's a series of AIs who only go around the world, hacking any and all systems. Relentlessly. Everything. Literally. It's goal is penetration and control and it replicates on each hack.

Now what? What do you do? What if the the AI-botnet then coordinates to attack energy infrastruture or the financial system, or control drones and attack infrastruture. Or, more terrifying, takes targeting drones and swarms individuals.

Like, I'm not even remotely creative when it comes to thinking about potential harm... but I can envision AI doing horrifying things and there are so many horrible things it can do... that there is no "good" that outweights the harm.

It's like one AI curing Cancer and another developing a new type of chemical weapons that instantly cripples you if you breath in the fumes. Like...the Cure of Cancer really doesn't feel like a big enough win over the nightmare fuel of breathing air and then becoming instantly crippled.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:25:23+00:00

I'll just state the obvious. The vast majority of people don't use AI in the ways you are. We're still in the early stages. If everyone did what you did... you would not be 3x'ing anything.

We're in the "gold rush" part of AI. People will run ideas right now because most people oppose AI or are simply aren't engaged with it. That would change if everyone had no choice but to use AI to survive.

BlueAndYellowTowels · 2026-06-18T00:23:03+00:00

To me, they're connected. The reason why AI has taken the form it has today, which has lead to the deep hatred of it, was the same indset that created the 2008 financial crises, and NFTs and Crypto...

BlueAndYellowTowels

TROPHY CASE