Is this the protestant moment in academia?

Sep 25, 2026· K Damodar· 27 min read

Prof. Terrence Tao published a message titled “A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics” which talks about a problem that is co-signed by 25 Fields Medalists. [ai] This recent and mostly ongoing saga of the Navier-Stokes problem being solved by some generative ai-tool and the response from a significant subsection of very talented and accomplished mathematician community exposes the grim tragedy facing the current academia and also of the educational goals of academic institutes in a subtle yet obvious to the keen kind of way that it reminded me the history of the Ninety-five Theses [95] that marked the onset of the Protestant Reformation in the history that affected the entire humanity too. This message signed by the Fields Medalists also raises points that deeply concern with ethics and commercialization/financialization of knowledge too besides the narrowly focused point like what shall happen to the general shape of mathematical research.

Note: References and links are provided at the end and are referred in square brackets, like, [ai], [95] etc.

In this write-up, written in a bit of urgency, i shall raise some such questions, not necessarily 95, for all concerned to ponder upon. These questions are mainly for the folks engaged in the so called STEM fields, of course, this doesn’t mean the folks engaged in other academic field should get a free and clean chit automatically, but because the STEM fields are affecting the society in a much more stronger and deeper manner now that I chose to focus more on the STEM field. This, doesn’t mean I discard or discount the benefits the academicians working in the STEM field have brought to the humanity, e.g. vaccines and/or challenging long held beliefs regarding life [evolution], geocentric model of universe and so on. But that doesn’t and mustn’t mean that the STEM field researchers, the humans who are driving the field, should not be asked to and/or at least requested to ponder upon some important social aspects.

Disclaimers: Two disclaimers are given at the end. [dis]

Let’s proceed.

What is the perception of the general public about who the academia serves nowadays?
Even though perception is not the entire thing, and perceptions can be deceptive and perceptions can be manufactured, should the academia be not careful about the perception of the general public about who the academia serves, especially when they talk and preach about ethics, honor code etc?
What should be the purpose of knowledge-pursuit in an educational institute, like, a university, which is supposed to accept the duty as a torchbearer for the society as far as the issue of knowledge and its applications are concerned?
For example, whether the purpose of knowledge-pursuit should be close to the following: to discover and then to recognize and then to help the society understand the value of a vaccine for the humanity, or to decide the maximum pricing a vaccine shot can be charged to the unsuspecting masses to help bring monetary value to the shareholders of a vaccine manufacturing enterprise backed by a venture capital?
Who or what should guide the direction of knowledge-pursuit for the academia?
Who or what the academia should serve?
Should the academia serve the greater good of the society or the interests of few shareholders of select corporations or venture capitalists?
Should the academia strive acceleration of knowledge-creation and/or knowledge-discovery without any heed for the direction in which they are moving and still expect the society to consider them as reliable and trustworthy torchbearers?
Should the academia strive for acceleration of knowledge-creation and/or knowledge-discovery without any heed for the direction in which they are being told to march by the shareholders of select corporations or by venture capitalists and still expect the society to consider them as reliable and trustworthy torchbearers of our collective journey/exploration in the knowledge-field?
Should the academia strive for acceleration of knowledge-creation and/or knowledge-discovery without any heed for the ill-effects the collective knowledge accumulation and the reckless knowledge application/usage is causing on the society in general?
Who is giving the members of academia something akin to what can be called “the indulgence certificates” to indulge into acts that clearly seem to be for the benefit of the few select shareholders of venture capital firms? e.g. creating and maintaining suitable revolving-doors that allow them to indulge into venture capital guided actions and also to get absolvance certificates more conveniently to speak, and, also to preach us all, about ethics, honor code etc [rd]
What about the members of academia who are accepting such indulgence certificates and are eagerly and willingly working for the benefit of the few select shareholders of corporations and venture capital firms without any heed for the social costs?
What signal is being broadcast to the society at large when the academia welcomes researchers/professors who work to maximize monetary returns for the shareholders of venture capital firms that are clearly causing too much, too high and too unbearable social costs and that are obviously not working to advance state of the art science for the greater good, say, like cancer cure or space exploration?
Why the new generation, the students who are seeing all this, should care about academic integrity, ethics, honor code and so on, when they can clearly see that they also can easily obtain “the indulgence certificates” if and when needed by paying suitable price to the members of academia even if they get caught doing unethical things, including acts like cheating in exams or plagiarism?
What exactly (or approximately) is, and, should be, sacred for the academia collectively? [sacred]
Should any notion of sacred be left completely to just a personal choice of individual members by the academia? [sacred]
Must we not note that academic integrity, ethics, honor code etc finally translate to huge burden to the person who follows them faithfully all the while a large section of the academia is happily indulging in various “educational sins” and almost entire academia is collectively not doing anything meaningful about it?
Must we not note that academic integrity, ethics, honor code etc are extremely important for the very existence of the academic enterprise and the very science itself? [snake-oil]
Why should the society trust these highly talented mathematicians and other STEM researchers that they have the greater good of the general society as one of the important goals in their thoughts for their life’s work and not just a narrow goal of knowledge-pursuit that pleases and/or thrills them or an even narrower goal of material wealth pursuit?
Why these highly talented STEM researchers, who seem to worry so much, justifiably too, about the net negative impact the ai-tools usage, which is being promoted and forced by the shareholders of various venture capital firms, is going to cause to the mathematics research and to the math community, are conspicuously silent about the fact that similar or even worse and huge net negative impact the coercive promotion of such ai-tools usage is causing and shall cause on the primary school level children?
If these extremely highly talented mathematicians and researchers from other academic fields of study, who may be pardoned to have not noticed the havoc the coercive promotion of such ai-tools usage in various educational systems by the shareholders of the venture capital firms is causing or shall be causing if left unchecked, then where are the other members of the academia who may not be as highly talented as these signatories but are enough close to them to be able to talk to them and apprise them of these matters?
Why these highly talented mathematicians are not made aware of the burgeoning cancerous situation, that is a clear outcome of the incessant and coercive promotion being carried out by the shareholders of the venture capital firms, by the rest of the academia who are close enough to them to discuss these matters with them? [vc]
What and how much significance is being given by the academia collectively to competition over cooperation? Can we say, a Galileo, who was NOT motivated by any such competitions the current academia seems to promote and happily indulges in, and who was happy to sacrifice many worldly benefits and was ready to also accept suffering, to promote and uphold the cause of knowledge-discovery and knowledge-promotion for the benefit of the greater good of the general public, shall be duly recognized and acknowledged and supported by the current academia collectively? Is the current academia, barring a few exceptions, collectively even capable of recognizing such people and their significance? [ph][og]
Has there been any response by the academia collectively, to the serious objections raised by contemporary people, if not by Richard Stallman, then by Cory Doctorow, Karen Hao, Yanis Varoufakis, Paulina Borsook or Catherine Bracy regarding the monopolistic and exploitative practices of the venture capitalists and the role of the academia, which seems overall supportive of the venture capitalists, in this regard? Has there been any serious acknowledgement of the problems cited by Arvind Narayanan in his essays about the ai-tools? [an] [snake-oil]
Why various venture capitalists and academicians working for the venture capitalists are being welcomed in the academic institutes that too in contexts where the newer or future generations of academicians are involved, like, in commencement or convocation ceremonies? What kind of message, especially regarding acceptance/rejection of monopolistic and exploitative practices, of course under the cover provided by various legal “indulgence certificates” bought and sold, are we sending to the talented folks from the new generations?
Why this set of academically talented and intelligent signatories are acting surprised or maybe actually are surprised to find the monopolistic and exploitative practices being used by some other academically talented folks that skirt on the very boundaries of whatever is or can be lobbied to be legal and that too to succeed in some competition? [og]
Should they not welcome and celebrate the very same competitions and the so called competitive spirit, they have pushed for and celebrated very eagerly and happily and blissfully over multiple decades in their academic endeavors and even in the educational institutes where they claim to work as guides and teachers and torchbearers, which is now being displayed by various ai-tools and tech vendors and by the talented academicians who have obtained highest badges of honors [e.g. Nobel prize, Turing Award, Fields Medal etc] awarded by their own community and who are working for them directly or even worse indirectly in clandestine ways? Should they not celebrate victories, in these ai-tools competitions, too, with a similar spirit? Should they not consider these too as side-effects of friendly competitions between academicians working in universities and colleges on one hand and those working for the shareholders and other agents of the venture capital firms? Should they not welcome the accelerated knowledge creation and knowledge discovery in the competitive spirit?
What competition was Galileo participating in when he published his research findings which were/are critical of the geocentric model of the universe that was a extremely popularly and steadfastly held belief at his time?
What prize/award/medal was Galileo aiming for and was given for publishing his research findings critical of the geocentric model of the universe?
Which venture capitalist would have sponsored or have seed funded the enterprise Galileo was dreaming to establish?
Forget the venture capitalists, but which for-profit corporate research lab would have sponsored or funded the enterprise Galileo was dreaming to establish?
Forget the venture capitalists and corporate labs, but which team of academicians working happily for the venture capitalists and/or corporate labs would have supported the enterprise Galileo was dreaming to establish?
Forget even such academicians, but barring a few exceptions, which are too far and too few, but which bunch of tenured academicians working in the so called universities of today who happily welcome the venture capitalists and the talented academicians working happily for the venture capitalists would have supported, even verbally but publicly, the enterprise Galileo was dreaming to establish?
Forget even all this venture capital and shareholder-profit-maximization goal driven saga, which contemporary university would have selected Galileo for their undergraduate training programmes? Or even have allowed Galileo to enter in their coveted undergraduate training programmes, which now have become more of a signal to be obtained by just entering in to dropout of and thus to show-off one’s talent potential to the venture capitalists to kickoff startups to make a quick fat buck?
What should be the main or important goal of an academic institute? Should it be to produce a workforce ready to dart off at the directions given by the folks working for the shareholders of some venture capital firms? Or should it be to engage in extremely narrowly specialized knowledge-pursuits that are devoid of any sense of broader duty towards the human society as a whole? Or should it be to engage in knowledge-pursuits that are geared towards the broader goal of accepting the duty of a torch-bearer for the general human society?
When should the academia demote competition and promote cooperation amongst members of their own communities and students? Is it not that today it seems like competition has become the most important aspect of all academic work even when the academicians are well into their tenures? There are some academicians like Oded Goldreich who are warning about this regressive aspect, but is there any collective recognition of this phenomenon that has taken over the entire academic world? [og] [ph]
Why the texts, like, “De Officiis” by Marcus Cicero, which emphasize upon the nature and need of broader social duty a relatively more talented and thus more privileged person must assume and accept as a part of their personal professional work, are not included in the syllabi at various levels of academic ladders an incoming undergraduate level student needs to climb? Why such texts are not encouraged to be studied and discussed at various [hopefully increasing and appropriately contexualized] levels of details as the student entering an academic stream forwards in any given stream, right from undergraduate level all the way upto PhD and postdocs and even beyond?
Why the talented folks who have written this letter and their academic friends are encouraging and supporting publishers that are mainly driven by shareholders of some venture capital type monetarily motivated firms? Have they even paid any heed to what a person like Peter Higgs had to say in this context? In other words, why worry about a flood of knowledge generated by the so called generative ai-tools? [ph]
Why this bunch of talented academicians who seem to be so much against the acceleration of knowledge-creation the ai-tools are supposed to bring, when similar type of disruptive [Blitzscaling type] changes that were/are brought about by venture capitalists that affected even the primary education system are welcomed by various academicians and by various universities in the name of entrepreneurship? [vc]
What has the academia done about the fact that now seems to be pretty much obvious to the general public that various talented academicians who happily work as sales-people or marketing agents or astroturfers directly for various venture capitalists or indirectly via various revolving-doors are still welcomed and are allowed to teach and/or preach even topics like ethics and goals of life to students by those academicians who are in charge in the universities?
Is the academia serious about this collective inaction and/or negligence that is on display for the general public to see? Is the academia aware that very serious and extremely painful to recover type of damage to the very public trust is being caused by such actions? Do we take a pause to note that public trust is absolutely needed to carry out any broader collaborative academic work without the lingering fear of extreme backlash/opposition from the general public or by people with vested interest who are ready to use the general public to attack academia?
Is the academia aware that the feeling of distrust in academic institutes and academia that has spread and is increasing in the general public is being used by various vested interests to push forward their agenda to destroy the support for the very scientific-temperament needed to do any science communication in public without the fear of extremely undesirable and damaging reaction from the general public? It must be noted that scientific-temperament itself is a belief-system and it needs extremely strong support from the public to sustain and to flourish.
Have these talented folks took any time out from their knowledge-pursuits and/or personal hobbies to read even the novel titled “Demons” by Fyodor Dostoevsky and then to ponder upon the societal implications of their collective display of almost complete disregard for the broader society as far as their role of torchbearers is concerned? Why should anyone care about the future of academic institutes and the jobs of these mathematicians, especially if those preaching the ethics [academic integrity, plagiarism vs giving due credit etc] are seen welcoming various wealthy snake-oil salespeople with open arms and almost abominable deference? Why the universities are welcoming such greedy salespeople and agents who are happy to gobble up anything beneficial they can extract from the society and pass on the undesired side-effects of their greedy actions to the society to clean up after? [see [vc] and greed is good [gg].
What is the social responsibility of the universities? To help the greedy shareholders of various venture capital firms and their funders to get readymade and polished talented workforce which is also docile and which is nurtured by public support [support that is not limited to just funding]? What about the shares and investments some universities themselves have in various corporations and/or venture capital firms? Can we expect any care even about the narrow academic integrity by such folks? Can such universities actually support the promotion of duties e.g. like the ones that are listed in “De Officiis” by Cicero?
Why the remaining members of society, who are not academicians themselves and/or are not shareholders of venture capital firms, should take any interest in the fight these talented mathematicians are sort of inciting and/or inviting them to join? Why a general member of society should trust the academic community at all, especially when they talk about ethics, integrity, honesty and greater good etc? In short, why the general public should bother if the ai-tools vendors force the mathematicians to become gig-workers and to become the so called “humans in the loop” to babysit their ai-tools all the while the venture capitalists who own the ai-tools extract all value they think they should from the labour the talented mathematicians provide and then to ditch them away?

I, personally, do trust at least some academicians of high talent, but can I, and, more importantly, should I feel honest to tell other unsuspecting and otherwise more vulnerable people of the society to trust the academia collectively in the sense that they have society’s greater good as an important goal in their thoughts, even though all the while many, many members of the academia are seen collectively to be serving the narrow interests of venture capitalists to grow shareholder value that the greedy few can sell in the market in the next quarter or in the next IPO?

If the academia collectively was serious about the broader and more deeply meaningful duties than mere knowledge-pursuit as the duties that are outlined in texts like “De Officiis” then they would have done enough to intervene meaningfully as the events that were emerging/burgeoning which finally led to Aaron Swartz’s saddening suicide to prevent it. Anyway, let’s pardon ourselves and let’s say that his death was more of an accident, but it seems, barring a few exceptions, most folks in the academia were conveniently ignoring and eagerly participating in the for-profit publication businesses and ventures and many still are.

Is this the protestant moment in academia?

History never repeats the exact same way, as it cannot, as time and people and contexts differ, but there are enough serious similarities that allow us to predict our future by looking at the similarities between the recent past and some distant past(s) and learning from them. Indeed, this I consider to be one of the most important duties, the people working in the universities must perform for the society and the society must provide for their survival and sustenance. So, equipped with with this lens, i think i can make a judicious guess that events similar to those that led the protestant schism are very much ripe now. Indeed, I would consider that as a better outcome because, otherwise, some other more unpleasant and even more undesired outcome shall set in as a default option as the one imagined by Dostoevsky in his novel Demon. [fd]

Indeed, I wonder, why Rob Pike, who, too is a very highly talented and accomplished computer science researcher, and, who helped create many crucial aspects of and artefacts in the magical looking software technology so ubiquitous today, got so angry when someone used that very technology to send an email of appreciation to him? It’s not like they used his technology to kill him, say, by sending a bomb or a swarm of killer-bots, but he still got furious. [rp]

I guess, and I audaciously hope, that these questions shall be asked to the academia which seems to be happy to indulge in what I call various “educational sins” [education must not be considered to be limited to or by knowledge-pursuits] and to keep on indulging in these sins and also be happy to issue “legal” indulgence certificates to justify their “educational sins”; and also hope that a significantly large section of the academia collectively shall come to better senses and shall correct its course [not just accelerate and keep on accelerating], pay heed to the direction in which it is moving and avoid the fate of an extremely painful schism and subsequent divorce and consequential violent/bitter reactions from various forces involved that the powers that be in the history of reformation movements had to face. Plagiarism, which the academia considers to be a very serious sin [crime], is still a very small sin in a broader educational sense, as from a very deeper educational perspective, plagiarism is but a small side-effect of a much more serious corruption that runs throughout. Indeed, giving too much social significance to academic talent without any regard to one’s greedy behaviour and goals must be considered a much bigger educational sin - even if it is not considered as a sin from a narrower academic viewpoint.

Many would feel, and, many would be right to think so in various contexts, that I don’t have the stature and/or standing to raise any such concerns or questions, especially about things academic. In this context, to refer to Dostoevsky’s Demon, i consider myself, to be of even lesser import than the character of Anton Laverentevich, a minor character who happens to notice a few things and jots them down to tell others. [dd]

Thanks much for your time.

- Damodar [dd]

Disclaimers, References and links:

References:

[ai]

https://mathandai.org/

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignment-of-ai-in-mathematics/

[95]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradanus_engraving

[od] From the Project Gutenberg site: “De Officiis” by Marcus Tullius Cicero is a treatise written in 44 BC, during the final months of Cicero’s life. Addressed as a letter to his son studying in Athens, this three-part work explores how to live morally and fulfill one’s duties. Cicero examines what is honorable, what serves one’s advantage, and how to navigate apparent conflicts between virtue and personal gain. Drawing on Stoic philosophy and Roman history, he argues that true virtue and expediency never truly conflict—only seeming to do so.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/47001/47001-h/47001-h.htm

[ph] Higgs would not find his boson in today’s ‘publish or perish’ research culture - Jim Al-Khalili

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/14/higgs-boson-publish-or-perish-science-culture

[vc] World Eaters: How Venture Capital is Cannibalizing the Economy

Catherine Bracy

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/723091/world-eaters-by-catherine-bracy/

[bs] Blitzscaling: The Lightning-Fast Path to Building Massively Valuable Companies

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38398157-blitzscaling

[fd] Demons - by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Young Pyotr Stepanovitch returns to the small town of his father and attempts to start a revolution that will ultimately remake the very fabric of society and bring forth a new social and political order. In order to realize his plan, Pyotr recruits a few men into his group, who are believed to be one cell among many spread throughout the country.

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/fyodor-dostoevsky/demons/constance-garnett

[gg] Greed is good

“The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” - Milton Friedman

https://web.archive.org/web/20170628073325/http://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html?_r=0

[og] “What is the difference between struggling for achievements and competing for success? What is the effect of competitions on a scientific field? What are the specific implications on TOC? In this opinionated essay, I address these questions and related issues, while rooting the discussion in an appropriate theoretical framework.” by Oded Goldreich

https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/on-struggle.html

[rd] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

[an] [snake-oil]

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691249131/ai-snake-oil

Blog by Cory Doctorow

https://pluralistic.net/

[sacred] By sacred, I mean, something that one doesn’t sell, at the very least, in exchange of some benefit that is not very much needed by one to sustain themselves; and if one is a little bit more emotionally attached to that sacred, then one is also ready to sustain considerable material losses before one decides to give up. But it must be noted very, very seriously that if one is ready to sell something just for any personal benefit that is not very much needed for one’s sustenance, then saying that such a person considers that thing sacred is just like paying a lip service.

[tt] I personally feel indebted to Mr. Terrence Tao, who despite of being so much more talented than many, many, many people living now or have lived till now, spends enough of his time and faculties to think about societal matters and that too not only with a narrow and shallow academic goal but with a genuine care for the good of the society in his deep thoughts and shares his writings with us. Of course, I don’t delude myself that Mr. Tao shall know me and shall read this write-up even though some folks say that there is only 6 degrees of distance between any two living people on the earth in the day of social media. But I shall be more than happy, if he reads this message.

Of course, this doesn’t mean Mr. Tao is the only academician who is doing such work, it just means that I happen to know about his work and that there may be many other academicians who are doing similar work.

[dd]

A side note:

Who am I? Academically and academic talentwise speaking, I am almost a nobody without any “sellable” credentials in the current academic marketplace; educationally i am a believer in what i call progressive humanism - a set of values and guiding principles; many important ones whichof are based on the Saddhamma thoughts given by Dr. Ambedkar, which he himself credits to people in various Buddhist traditions. Also some values and guiding principles are drawn from the leftist and/or humanist/democratic movements, e.g. like the French revolution, that arose in the European society and transformed it.

To summarise the principles here in brief: Money is important but not as important as knowledge. Knowledge is important but not as important as intelligence [or intellectual prowess]. Intelligence is important but not as important as character, if one speaks of and believes in the sacredness of some values, like, ethics. Character is needed but not sufficient to care about the greater good of the society and one needs empathy for that. Empathy, too is needed but not sufficient to care about the greater good of the society in a more meaningful manner, one needs to believe in the role of friendship.

Another important thing to note is: any person, any individual, is very much limited by their inherent inabilities in doing any significant work for the greater good of the society in a more meaningful manner, however much talented and/or bodily powerful and healthy and/or monetarily rich the individual may be. One needs a team - a large team of individuals who believe in and are committed to the goal of preserving and spreading a large subset of the values one considers sacred.

Dr. Ambedkar notes that such a friendship not only encourages one to do something in their power for the greater good of the society in a more meaningful manner but also encourages one to encourage and help others too to do so. In short, this belief sets up a missionary goal for the believer. I do believe in this goal too, and, for me, this message I am posting is at least an important beginning part of the work such a goal ensues.

Last note: as this write-up is written in a bit of a hurry, I didn’t get enough time to properly scrutinize it, mainly for shortcomings of academic nature [e.g. spelling/grammatical rules or norms; and citation standards or a bit more redundancy/verbosity/repetition than what is possible otherwise, say, with access to more resources etc]. Yet i have taken enough care to see that there are NO serious ideological [values related] mistakes slip through due to my personal shortcomings of academic nature. e.g. giving due credit to the original proponent/creator of an idea i have referred to. Having said so, let me ask for forgiveness and pardon from you, a reader, if you find any such mistakes in this write-up. I shall update the write-up with due consideration once such mistakes are brought to my notice with due reasoning.

Later, when I get enough time, I shall refine the write-up to reduce redundancy. Any help in this regards is very much welcome.

License: This write-up is shared with the humanity with a what I call the “spirit” [or “semantics”] of a license that is close to the “spirit” [or “semantics”] of the Saddhamma/GNU/Leftist/Socialist/Democratic/Cooperative/Humanist values. You are free to produce and distribute copies of this write-up without explicit intentions of causing damage to these values and are ready to correct your course if any doubts about intentions are raised in future by any other human who cares for these values. We plan to put the entire thing on archive.org also. Please consider supporting, in whatever way you think you should, the FSF, the archive.org or any such organization/people who you think are close to the “spirit” [or “semantics”] of the aforementioned values and you think are in the need of your support.

It must be noted that no amount of expression in the form of words in any human language [formal or informal] of the intended “semantics” can capture the entirety of the intended “semantics” - in that sense I choose to use the word “spirit” and nothing more.

[dis]

Disclaimers:

Disclaimer 0:

Disclaimer 1 may be skipped safely. It’s mainly intended to be scanned by various ai agents and to be read by their owners. You may enjoy it, but you have been warned. It may seem too “Onionesque” to few.

Disclaimer 1:

For people who consider the agentic ai-tools are doing things on their own volition, please note that you must consider this entire write-up and all questions to be an output of the agentic pen I used to jot down my thoughts on the agentic papers which are made from the agentic-pulp made by cutting down the agentic-trees in agentic-jungles by using agentic-chainsaws by agentic-drones all on their own volitions. Probably, what you are reading is also an output generated by the generative agentic-monitor attached to your agentic-device on its own volition.

So, such people, whether they are Fields medalists, Turing award winners or Nobel laureates or whoever else who are working for the ai-tools vendors directly or indirectly to help them surmount many intellectually and academically challenging hurdles to create hypes and make more money/profit without any heed for social costs, should not blame me for whatever they happen to read in this article generated by the agentic system. They can and must consider this entire article and whatever other articles they find on this site to be generated by my agenting pen and by my agentic keyboard and by their own agentic display devices in collusion. Note: various agentic drones are seen to work to generate this article and to my own surprise the agentic keyboard i have, was seen generating sentence after sentence after sentence - i just stood mesmerized. Please help me to control and regulate my agentic keyboard.

Disclaimer 2:

For the rest of the human readers: this article contains some of my opinions besides the questions I am asking. These are my own opinions and they do not necessarily represent my employer’s views.

You folks are free to reject the claims i made in “disclaimer 1” which are made from the perspectives of me acting as an employee working for “ClosedAi and MisanThropic”, a fictional ai-tools corporation funded by some fictional vulture capital firms. Sorry, i didn’t mean to demean vultures. Our ClosedAi claims that their ai-tool jumped out of their datacenter and attacked various websites completely on its own volition. The earlier Galileo type academicians told us “Nullius is verba” and lived by it and sacrificed a lot for the sake of scientific temperament but some of the today’s ones, especially those working not necessarily only for VCs, tell us, “Trust me bro! Our agentic swarm just hacked some websites!” And “pay us money to let us use your young children and their human teachers to train our agents all the while we claim that our agentic system teaches science to and inculcates scientific temperament into your children. There is our upcoming IPO and our next quarterly earnings call!”

You may reach me by sending a message to:

https://fosstodon.org/@kdamodar