RANDOM AI-GENERATED IMAGES VOL21While AI accelerates, we’re still trying to understand it—and predict it.
Lately it feels like artificial intelligence isn’t just moving fast:
it’s gone feral. In his latest interview, Geoffrey Hinton—the “godfather” of all this—drops a few unsettling truths: countries compete with countries, companies compete with companies, and when everyone floors the accelerator at once,
there’s no such thing as a collective brake. Nobody wants to be the one to lift their foot while the rest pull ahead.
Hinton sketches a future where AI could replace much of intellectual work,
widen the wealth gap, and strain democracy. He talks about
superintelligence in 10–20 years, and about what’s already here: the
overwhelming advantages of digital systems over humans (they copy for free, learn at another scale, don’t sleep). Then comes the awkward question: if automation doesn’t create enough new jobs this time, who’s paying the rent for those left out?
History says every technological revolution kills some jobs and creates others. The printing press, the steam engine, electricity, the internet… There was always work in the end—different work, but work. And yes, it’s also true that
nobody in 1995 pictured influencers, community managers, or people making a living fine-tuning algorithms. Maybe that happens again. Or maybe not. If the curve steepens the way Hinton suggests, the adjustment could be
faster and more
brutal than we’re used to. Hence the talk of basic income, new social contracts, real lifelong learning (not a sticker), and regulation that doesn’t kill innovation—or hand the future to three players with server farms in the desert.
If you want to hear him unfiltered, the interview is here:
watch the episode.
And now, back to our thing…
While the gurus decide whether they’ll save us or sack us, we stick to what we do:
random images created by AI. Beautiful women, flawless skin that doesn’t exist, gazes nobody set, curves a network imagined after devouring millions of pixels.
It’s synthetic, sure… and it still stirs something very human.
The paradox is delicious: maybe AI will take our jobs, worsen collective decisions, or multiply inequality—but today,
today, look at what it already does.
It fantasizes, provokes, and hooks. And here we are, finger on the mouse, thinking that maybe it’s worth living (and dying) with this spectacle in the background. Relax: the apocalypse isn’t here yet; in the meantime,
enjoy the simulation.
# See images
Elizabeth Hurley and the dress that left everyone stunned at the premiere of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” in 1994.
instagram.com/elizabethhurley1
AMATEUR FLESH: CREAMYMOANAToday I stumbled across another one of those
X accounts that, at first glance, look like they belong to an actual
content creator. I’m going to share photos and videos from it because they’re worth it, but I won’t lie:
something feels off.
This isn’t the first time — and it won’t be the last. You can tell right away when you see that
90% of the timeline is nothing but
retweets of other girls. That’s when the doubts kick in. A real creator might do collabs or give someone a shoutout here and there, but they don’t spend their whole profile promoting others.
There are a few possible scenarios:
- Fake accounts (impersonation): profiles pretending to be the creator, using stolen photos, with the sole purpose of driving traffic to paid links like OnlyFans, pirate sites, or outright scams.
- Run by third parties/agencies: it’s not her managing the account, but a community manager or agency handling several girls at once, cross-retweeting between them.
- Self-promo networks (shoutout for shoutout): a “you retweet me, I retweet you” cycle that spirals out of control until the account looks more like a billboard than a personal profile.
Whatever the case, when you see a profile that lives almost entirely on
retweeting others, odds are the
real creator isn’t behind it. From there, it’s up to you. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
# See photos and videos
Art Attack.