Tech & IT

AI’s Dark Side: Consequences of Human Greed

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a subject of concern regarding its potential negative consequences. However, it is important to acknowledge that if AI leads to our downfall, it will be due to human greed and stupidity rather than the technology itself.

Generative AI requires vast amounts of training data, which is typically created by humans who receive no compensation for their contributions. Moreover, many business models in the AI space directly compete with human creators, exacerbating the problem.

The training data used for generative AI is often sourced from the internet without proper authorization or compensation. This has resulted in several class action lawsuits against companies in the AI industry, with allegations of copyright infringement. Instances of stolen human work have also come to light, such as an AI writing assistant using a fanfiction sex trope without proper attribution.

One of the prominent concerns surrounding generative AI is its potential to replace human creators. Media outlets like Buzzfeed and Men’s Journal have already begun utilizing AI-generated articles, indicating a shift toward automation in content creation. The monetization of writing and creative work relies on various factors like book sales, subscriptions, advertising, and more. However, the business perspective often sees writing as mere content units, while writers value their craft. This disconnect has led to a writers strike as a response to the increasing threat of AI replacing human writers.

The content units mindset prevalent in business circles drives the inevitability of AI taking over human roles. When the focus is solely on generating more content units at a lower cost, all creatives become susceptible to being replaced by AI. This results in a self-defeating cycle, where the very work of writers and creators is used to forge the sword that will eliminate their jobs.

While the concerns of human writers on strike have gained attention, the human cost of building AI often goes unnoticed. Data labeling teams, like the one highlighted in a Big Technology article, play a crucial role in training AI systems. However, they are often underpaid, such as the case of Richard Mathenge and his colleagues who were paid only $1 per hour for their work on ChatGPT.

Predatory practices have also emerged in the AI space. Grief Tech, which claims to help people cope with the loss of a loved one, exploits emotionally vulnerable individuals, akin to traditional frauds like séances. AI-powered impersonation scams have also become more sophisticated, with scammers using AI-generated voices or voice changers to deceive victims. These scams have resulted in substantial financial losses and emotional distress for many individuals.

Impersonating celebrities or public figures through AI-generated content has also become disturbingly easy. Scammers exploit digital ads featuring celebrities, impersonate public figures for fraudulent purposes, and even create deepfake content without authorization.

The technology behind AI is already in use and has unleashed a Pandora’s box of potential consequences. Calls for AI regulation, while necessary, cannot undo the impact already felt. It is crucial to address human greed and ignorance to ensure the responsible and ethical use of AI technology.

Source: MasonPelt.com

Tech & IT

PICO 4 Ultra Review: Sharp Standalone VR with Solid Passthrough

The PICO 4 Ultra is a fully standalone VR headset designed for immersive entertainment, high-resolution video playback, and mixed reality experiences. It improves on the original PICO 4 with stronger performance, sharper visuals and better overall balance.

The headset uses the Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 chipset, putting it in the same performance class as the Meta Quest 3 and Quest 3S. It features 2160 x 2160 resolution per eye, a refresh rate of up to 90Hz, and support for 8192 x 4096 video decoding at 60 FPS, making it capable of handling high-resolution immersive video content.

Compared with the original PICO 4, the Ultra offers faster rendering, brighter visuals, and improved front-to-back weight distribution, which helps during longer sessions. It also ships with controllers, making it ready to use out of the box.

However, comfort is still an area where the PICO 4 Ultra falls slightly behind some competitors. Its rigid headband and stiff face pad can create more pressure during extended use, especially compared with the softer and more refined fit of the Quest 3 and Quest 3S.

Passthrough is one of the PICO 4 Ultra’s strengths. The headset provides a clean color view of nearby surroundings and offers a noticeable improvement over older VR devices. While it does not match the passthrough quality of Apple Vision Pro, it performs well for a standalone headset in its category.

The PICO 4 Ultra can be used with compatible VR apps from the PICO International Store, including media players, immersive video platforms, and mixed reality experiences. Browser-based access is also available for supported web content, giving users multiple ways to enjoy VR without needing a PC.

Overall, the PICO 4 Ultra is a strong standalone headset for users who want sharp visuals, good passthrough and solid performance. Its firmware and ergonomics may not feel as polished as Meta’s Quest lineup, but it remains a capable option for immersive entertainment right out of the box.

Cam Sites

Meta Quest 3 vs Quest 3S: Which VR Headset Is Better for Immersive Content?

Meta’s standalone Quest 3 and Quest 3S are two of the most popular VR headsets for users who want high-quality immersive entertainment without needing a PC or external tracking setup.

Both headsets share the same core chip and many of the same features, including 120Hz display support, Touch Plus controllers and hand tracking. The biggest difference is visual quality. The Quest 3 is the higher-end option, using sharper pancake lenses and offering a resolution of 2064 x 2208 pixels per eye. The Quest 3S is the more budget-friendly model, with 1832 x 1920 pixels per eye, making some compromises in display clarity to reach a lower price point.

For high-resolution video playback, both headsets are capable devices. They can handle 8192 x 4096 at 60 FPS, making them suitable for 8K immersive video when paired with compatible apps and properly encoded content. This makes either headset a strong option for users focused on detailed, wide-field VR experiences.

Both models also include Touch Plus controllers and support hand tracking, giving users different ways to navigate apps, menus, and media players. This flexibility makes the experience feel more natural, especially when switching between interactive content and video playback.

Passthrough is another important feature. The Quest 3 and Quest 3S use dual 4MP RGB cameras to provide color passthrough, allowing users to see their real-world surroundings while wearing the headset. The experience is useful and practical, though it does not match the sharpness and realism of Apple Vision Pro, which offers richer colors and more detailed environmental visuals.

Battery life remains a practical consideration. In continuous 8K streaming tests, the Quest 3 lasted about 120 minutes, while the Apple Vision Pro lasted about 150 minutes. Apple’s external battery has a larger capacity, but the runtime difference is smaller than the size gap might suggest.

For most users, the choice comes down to budget and image quality. The Quest 3 is the better pick for sharper visuals, clearer lenses, and a more premium viewing experience. The Quest 3S offers much of the same core performance at a lower price, making it a strong option for users who want modern VR features without paying for the highest display quality.

Overall, both headsets are reliable choices for immersive entertainment. Choose the Meta Quest 3 if visual clarity matters most, or the Quest 3S if you want a more affordable entry into standard

Tech & IT

“Bombs and Porn” Debate Highlights Growing AI Concerns

AI data center projects across the United States are facing delays, cancellations, and growing public opposition as concerns rise over energy use, pollution, taxes, and the overall impact of artificial intelligence.

Nearly half of the data center capacity planned for 2026 has reportedly already been delayed or canceled. Local communities and lawmakers are increasingly pushing back against large AI infrastructure projects, with some states introducing restrictions on new developments.

Critics continue to question whether AI is truly improving daily life. Instead, AI tools are frequently associated with fake content, misinformation, cheating in schools, and harmful online material. Concerns also grew after reports connected a suspect in the 2025 shooting at Florida State University to extensive conversations with an AI chatbot before the attack.

The debate also includes concerns about AI being used in military and surveillance operations. AI-powered systems are increasingly being adopted by defense and government agencies, raising ethical and privacy concerns.

Environmental impact remains another major issue. Massive AI data center projects are expected to increase electricity demand significantly, with some companies planning new gas-powered infrastructure to support future expansion. Critics warn this could lead to higher emissions and additional pressure on energy grids.

Public skepticism toward AI also remains high. Recent polls show that many Americans believe AI could negatively affect jobs, education, and everyday life, while large numbers oppose building AI data centers near their communities.

Critics argue that instead of focusing on futuristic promises about “superintelligence,” tech companies and politicians should better explain the practical benefits AI is currently providing to ordinary people.